Gazette of India, 2008, No. 52

tEnfraAmm)

H2i

R£GD. NO. D. L. ftQ04*)007fl003—05

3J Kd^

(The ©axette of'<3iidia

UlOlHiH 'ft

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

Ulkllip*

WEEKLY

, 3ft 4—4|ft 10> 2008, 14—4w<S 20, 1930

NEW DELHI, MAY 4—MAY IQ, 2008, SATURDAY/VAISAJOU14—VAISAKHA20,193Q

Wf HWT ^ t ftwii ft» <n ^ 9E if TUT W

Separate Paging iigivn tothii Part In order that It may be liled « a separate compilation

«mr if—(ii) - 4

___ PARTH—Section 3—Sob-section (11) _ ’»' _

wn nint ^ tjunvilf (t?T ifllflU ^p!T) gITT "dlfl sn^tDr

Statutory Older* aid Notifications Issued by the Ministries of tbc Government ofjfedla
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

U 19]
No* 191

ftfli atftr 3fl*r H*iei«i
(Ihlli ta( 1h*n*r)

25 31^,2008

HiT.3r. 977.—'4R3>k, VS flfem. 1973
(1974 m 2) 4ft 'TO 24 3ft 39-3RT (I) WJ Kd Tl fawT
V y<ih «Msk gju df gj^qioft SflPwwf 3ft,
3V -4WW3 ^ 'tiro Tfa ’ll V£Ni w<hjt^f4>rft
Rtmhi "31 4*1^514 OS ’ll «to /Er^ 3*ft 3fft3» HIHCff V
fa4W» Tl*ft 4flw» ffe -mfaSItC $pft& 4lft4*
tjl slba * 11^1 ’ft ftflRR
it into ^ 1%m vt th! 4ft atfft Tgft 5H ftr ?ft flptei
3i$tM] ftEwi 3nr rife' 4i(*f*ila4> ’ft vr if <Nv-fl ftgPw
3ft arofti ^?r «mq Tfa 31 V?fN titor ^ ftttft fa*iR

31 4.wlew tft Rk* aw ftSTitw taft 3ffc+ mihtI 3"*^

3^ -4HIRIV if 344MW 3tflf "fW, W 410*4^41 3» W4>I¥H

3ft siflsi t 3 3* ^ swftr $ ftR w and anfter sift wr/

S3*f ft! ^{(K "ft, 3PR eik> SIPbUbW ^ if

I

* t4t ''R 23(2}/200G-*3lfa3»]

T&L Tt OTI 'ijjuflj THjafcl Tlf^ aftr UWfl
"526GKI008 C

ministry of LAW and justice

(Department of Legal AH*in)

New Delhi, the 23rd April,2008 -
S.O. 977*—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (I) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby
appoints of Shri Hitendra Jadavji Dedtiia, Advocate as
Additional Public Prosecutor for the purpose of conducting
all criminal cases including criminal writ petitions, crinwial
appeals, criminal revisions^ criminal references and criminal
applications by or against the Union of India or any
Department or Office of the Central Government, in the
High Court of Judicature at Mumbai, with effect Grom the
dale of publication ofthis notification in the Official Gazette,
for a period of two year or until further orders, whichever is
earlier, subject to the condition that Shri Hitendra Jadavji
Dedhia, Advocate shall not appear against the Union of
India or any Department or Office of the Central
Government in any criminal case referred to above in the
High Court of Judicature at Mumbai during the period of
his appointment.

[F. No. 23(2y200S-JudJ.]
M* A. KHAN YUSUF!, Jt. SecydtGC

2100

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA;MAY 10, 200R/VAISAKHA 20, 1930

^1^*ft,23 A, 2008

"WT.ar. 978 ,-«Ah0v *k*k, yf*4i wfeoi, 1973
(1974^12) I*rci24^5i^«ra (1) 5FTWI «|M
^pff

TJH($ "3^ ■JIlilLcHJ #1 ^ +K4ili feft

favmr "qi ^thfcnt sra "?TRt hihhT ^1

IVl^ jflrfafl ^|fel fe l l i, ^lT^*n Jill'S, 'ilTs^i JJ-lcta®!,

IMf^r ^ if, fl'iini jiiS ^ iriM

^ f?lH ^| Tli ^ 4 IN)h fti ^*i(il jpi >*iFin

3$hsq,t arw cftat ^Ph4ji+ <F "4 arrtt f^gfei 4?r
araftf ^ wz ■*f £ i ■qi ^-sitq -m+K ^ fam *11

trxqfrH ^ fcH>^ e"K [-i^lrid (Vt+ft h inrH £ i n (
-4I9H9 ^ B'RHIct fM, Tl’444 3 JQ aqft^rn ^
TtqjRFT q>l 3 ^ atrtfa^3n^?T
TO, 'fl'K l), -3TT7 n'l’P SflfaqNqr ^ ^

fijj^i ^u(t ^1

[R ^ 23(2)/2008-^TO]

i^. H. ^3TT «y4tl sfk y<4iill w-iito

New Dethj, the 23rd April, 2008

SO. 978,—In exercise bf the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby
appoints of Mrs. Rutuja Anil Ambedkar, Advocate as
Additional Public Prosecutor for the purpose of conducting
all criminal cases including criminal writ petitions, criminal
appeals, criminal revisions, criminal references and criminal
applications by or against the Union of India or any
Department or Office of the Central Government, in the
High Court of Judicature at Mumbai, with eff ect from the
date of publ ication of this notification in the Official G azertc,
tbr a period oft wo year or until further orders, whichever is
earlier, subject to the condition that Mrs. Rutuja Anil
Ambedkar, Advocate shall not appear against the Union
of India or any Department or Office of the Central
Government in any criminal case referred to above in the
High Court of Judicature at Mumbai during the period of
her appointment.

[F, No. 23{2V2008dudl.)

M. A. KHAN YUSUFI, Jt. Secy, & GC

tMUfeld, *[®l IWI^Hl

21 aifa, 2008

it. 1/2008-09

44,301 979,-5tmr frtW, 1962 it fWT 2 ^

WfqdHlM atfqfWT, 1961 (I9fii 434f) *471

[Pari fl—S ec, 3(ii)]

lQ^^HT (23^) ^TfR-VTTT (4) ^'BRI’SKrT
tpftti fr tpzr jurot sn^ Tsjjny tid^Hi fofhn
atf 2005-2006 T^’ 3Trtl ^ ^ ^

*’ ?fr HI4I4I W^TtJ (fa), (HW^l),

f^T (7R.) ’ 1 ’att ^ql^Ri ^ct

amt ttMt 3ttw knn, i %2 ^ fm 2 ^ ^

w 44Hl ii 3TFrai. jrfvfercrt, 1961 w It) ^

(23 (4) % 5rjs^ ^^rfi

[IE. ^afn^lf-STTSTflT^^^/lO (23 7t))2(KIS-2009/2281
eft, trp, fevif, -gtsti 3Tmrr ang^r

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER
OF INCOME TAX

Jodhpur, the 21 st April, 2008
No, U2008-09

S.O. 979,—lr exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-flause (iv) of clause (23 C) of Section 10 of the Income-
tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) read with Rule 2CA of the Income-
tax Rules, 1962, the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax,
Jodhpur, hereby approves “Shti J ain SJiwetamber Nakoda
Pershwrath Tirth, Mcwanagar (Nakoda), DUtt. Banner.
(Rajasthan)” for the purpose of the said section for the
assessment years 2005-06 & onwards,

Provided that the society conforms to and complies
with the provisions of sub-clause (iv) of clause (23C) of
section 10 of Income-tax Act, 1961 read with rule 2Cofthe
Income-tax rules, 1962.

[No. CC IT/lTO(Tech VJu/10(23C)/2008-2009/2281

B.S.DHlLEOlSi,ChiefC ornmissioner of Income-T ax

vrtiy, 29 31^1, 2008

IT. S/2008-09

9B0, -jmtt f^riFT, 1962 ^ fWT 2 Tfl T( ^
WQ qd4^ T ^ l 44it srfVfaTrit, 1961 (1961 ^5143 ^f) MTCT
10 (23 iff) (vi) siiRwdl tt

Utfrn ^tr Jriyom, Sfrq* T(cPI5FI Pimo'i

^ 2004-2005 3flFt ^ ‘aiftJtf tlFI ^ ^

,l R6RM (44W4) XHtHU), ^ f I

^ 1962 ^ f^TR 2 ^

xrarN 3TFWT Jfffttfwt, 1961 ^?l TO 10 ^

(23 tfr) «e) (vi) HMtinV ^ ^p} ’gti 1

[■%. ‘gsnaW3T-3TT3H/ 10( 23^) (vi )/08 - (W 3531

Tgl T&. g^I 34FWT -331^1

s'tfli), 2008/^1^20, 1930 2101

[KIR II—TO*3(ii)]

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME-TAX

Jaipur, (he 29th April, 2008

No. 5/2008-09

S.O. 980,— Id exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-clause (vi)af clause (23C) ofSectfom 10 of the Income-
tax Act, 1961 (43 of 196 l)wadwilh rule 2CA ofthe Income-
tax Rules, 1962 theChiefCommissioneT oflncoiDe-tax, Jaipur
hereby approves “Maharaj Vinayak Society, Jaipur” for
the purpose of said Section for the A. Y. 2004-05 and
onwards.

Provided that the society conforms to and
complies with the provisions of sub-clause (vi) of clause
(23 C) of Section 10 of the Income-tax Act, (961 read with
rule 2CA ofthe Income-tax Rules, I96i

[No. CCnVJPR/Addl, CIT (Coord?

10(23CKviy2008-09/3531

S. C. KAPIL, € h ief Commissi oo cr of Income Tax
TOJL 29 snh, 2008
Tf. 6/2008-09

VUIL 981,-> 4IW«M fr«W , 1962 ^ fT*TC 2^^
to atro*ajfofes, i%i (i96i^i«'R)^^ira
10 ^ <si“« (23 ill) wfl 49*1 III (vi)
irain TOft ^ STKT tHI^El, IgtRgRI Ri*hU v I
2007-2008 ^ atrt ^ fin wifatr to ^ ^

AfttVWfl ^ I

intRR’ppFi 1962

TOI 9441*1 dfldOiI 3lMTOT p 1961 TO 10 ^

(23 ill) ‘US -JIMFO (vi) aftt (via) ^ UPfUnt ^

I

[*L ^HW3CTI3llf(TOTO)^Wl0{23fll)(vi) &

( Via M18-09/376]

na. sipto sn*ptt

Jaipur, the 29th April, 2008
No. 6/2008-09

S.O. 98L—in exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-clause<vi)& (via) of danse (23C) of Section 10 ofthe..
Income-tax Act, 1961(43 of 1961) re ad with rule2CA ofthe
Income-tax Rules, 1962 the Chief Commissioner of Income-
tax, Jaipur hereby approves “Indian Medical Trust, Jaipur”
for the purpose of said Section for the A. Y. 2007-08 &
onwards.

Provided that the society conforms to ajjd
complies with the provisions of sub-clause (vi) & (via) of
clause (23 C) of Section lOofthe Income-tax Act, 1961 toad
with rale 2CA oftbe Income-tax Rules, 1962.

[No. CCJT/JPR/Addl. CIT (Coor±V 1 0(23C)(vi) &

(via)/2008-09/376]

S. C. KAPIL, Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

fall 41ITO
(tram ftww)

^ ftwfl, 29 3t$£T„ 2008

TW,3tT, 982.—-i-tfR WWt, (I8TOI ^ TlKHlu

xhiwiH^ Rut n«l*i) f*PW, 1976^ Pih*i )0^

^ (18+8 ^ 3T*SN ■[jjL'Oi ^

iftir ^ ^ Pipffeted fWro so ufimw

^ 3 W vt to tot fen t,

tlfrr ClHOiW-sn^Ilrf ^il *HqUl4)

"TOSI vTO 'TO,

tfal,

f^vH 00 J |4, M4KI*^-400707

[m 11012/1/2008-18^-2 ]

(Tim)

MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Revenue)

New Delhi, the 29th April, 2fc»8
5.0. 982.— Inpursuacneof Sub Rule 4 of rule lOof
the Official Language (use of official purpose oftbe union)
Rules 1976 the Central Government hereby notifies the
following office under the Central Board of Excise and
Customs, Department of Revenue, the 80% staff where of
have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi;
Commission arete Custom (Export/bnport)

Jawahar Lei Nehru Seemu Shulk Bhawan,
Navhasheva,

PosMJnm, DlstL Raigad, Maharashtra-400707

F [F.No. 110l2/l/2008-Hindh2]
MADHU SHARMA, Director (OL)

(uatSfT»r uti)

30 31$W, 2008

W.W. 983.--H&UTOH dim>k> ^

ixPujf’m viiol ^ for U* 5 ? "BPI

ri<WU>Ml, 1962 (^T feRTOft) ^ fro 5^ TO 5^ ^
TO 3ITOR (961 (W 3lf(tfTO) ^ TO

35 qft'aq-TO (i) (ii) t -4-2004

^ H ,J TO XTO Rlflf tbltfivu, ^ t^m) ^*1 PlHltlftPI Tlttf

W t ir-

(i) Strife 11 S!3?rTO TO ,F ^511^7 TO

TOII .

(ii) TPTO To
U tld

Cm) SigRlftlJ 41'JldH WFt-Wklt 1^01 TO 79tt 3rfMfe«T

TO 288 ^"SR-TO (2) ^ 'H W

■qfeiPpr feft «tan>K ^ arpft ®Rir-^l
iim xidtn to^*tt 3^r3w stIyIwt^ TO 139
"4ft '39-TOI (1) ^ iffFtrl 3M ’feT B fr u+go

2102

[Part 11 —SEf. 3 (ii)]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 10, 300S/VAISAK] 1A 20, [< >30

t'wa iTlfet ci*ii ^ gw EqFq=Ki

T^’ "^JT T=ITR^ "4

xw\ aiPRSt apirg^sr as*rar shpr* (h^i+ ^
■pjja ^iti

(iv) IBw «u<m

Tmt Si^ew Tlf^T ^iT 5d^Pt l^rarn T^rn 3 ft? 39^Kl
^3T T TTt?OT UhV ^ ‘HPT ckoi SHF

Hroifafl Tifir ireg^i ^ni

2. ^ wsk w

W^CrJt :

(R7) ^nTTT 1 Ri (iii) ’flf -if™fen ^ST

wf T T!?f' T&fl; 3TORT

{-&) W i ^ ^-^mrs (iii) $ dfejfaj wrft
t^i ftpfti tr^t Tiff 3fi®raT

(t?) ^miMi 1 Civ) tflrnfen qtfiPw

SFJidtlH Rs I^TR "^T Tlf?T RT[ 3TRT

fWl ^nT; 3T*RTT

0*) srrr tot

4il*l 4*?in ^ ifT 4141 -jii^ii;

■3IW

0 ?) TRfT tH^HWl ^ fipR 5 TT afh: 5 ^ ^ ^

^RT 3flWm ^ *RT 35 Rit ^-TO (I) ^
j 0tt^ (ji) ^ THR^rF ^ 3T^R FWT 7^-TT

[arfepn^L 59/2Q0Bm 203/27/2006-^ + ^/fH-llJ

(Central Boflrd or Direct Taus)

New Delhi, the 30th April* 2008

5,0* 9B3*—It i* hereby notified for general
information that the organization Dabur Research
Foundation, New Delhi has been approved by the Central
Government for the purpose of clause (ii) of sub-section
(I) of Section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (said Act),
read with rules 5C and 50 of the Income-tax Rules, 1 962
(said Rules) with effect from 1 “4-2004 in the category of
'scientific research association* subject to the following
conditions, namely:

(I) The sole objective of the approved "scientific
research association- shall be to undertake
scientific research;

(ii) The approved organization shall carry on the

scientific research activily by itself;

(iii) The approved organ Ization shall maintain books
of accounts and get such books audited by an
accountant as defined in the explanation to sub¬
section (2) of Section 288 of the said Act and
furnish the report of such audit duly signed
and verified by such accountant to the
Commissioner of Income-tax or the Director of
Income-tax having jurisdiction over the case,
by the due date of furnishing the return of
income under subjection (1) of Section 139 of
the said Act:

(rv) The approved organization shall maintain a
separate siarcmern of donations received and
amounts applied for scientific research and a
copy of such statement duly certified by the
auditor shall accompany the report of audit
referred to above.

2. The Central Government shall withdraw the approval if
the approved organ ization:-

(a) fails to maintain books of accounts referred to
in sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph ]; or

(b) fails to furnish Ms audit reportrefeired to in sub-
paragraph (iii) of paragraph l;or

(c) fails to furnish its statement of donations
received and amounts applied for scientific
research referred to in sub-paragraph (iv) of
paragraph ], or

(d) ceases to carry on its research activities or ils
research activities are not found to be genuine;

or

(e) ceases to conform to and comply with the
provisions of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of
Section 35 of the said Act read with rules 5 C
and 5D of the said Rules.

[Notificaton No. 59/200S/F.No. 203/27/20061TA-1I]
SURENDERPAL, Under Secy

^ 1^#, 30 arfe, 2008

^T,3H. 984, —JiiftiiO fijTH iin<ylT{[
^Jss srftirjfatT favm ^ricn f t^R URi

1%2 P-mudl) ^ 1w 5*1 W 5W *£
tti*t ■qfer arum srfafwr, 1961 ^ vrci

35 (I) (ii) 1-4-2006

^ wwi trRj fn^ Ttraiffl, tr=? irar,

^ to! ^ srUriq? ^9 ^

[*OTn-^re3<H)]

TO^TWn :^10 T 2008/4919 20, 1930

2103

*(44*hihT 419»fr to**' Rft M # styflfta

ft*9 TO 4, n*m: r—

(i) etjiflfcfl #l&4 9l TR?T Tlftl 91 ^4| J | 4d)Fl4>
siyfaH ^ fan 1*9 9^n,

<*) 9jpjlftfT WkM 3nrt 4l4il<l nytuf 3T*Wl

mftn ft'OffWf 4A 9R^ ^ «J«TO

,9l*f-0>?lW ^ t«i'ii?

(iH) 'ton 4atft9 aigston^ ^

'Bronn?i "ofti 4» #rt ara*i 9rat ^
«j) J || ^ Rff<t iqhfl olbi ^viK

sifoPm*! ^ m 28S *t-hrt
(2) # witaw 4f W Ml^lftM ^9I*K
^ «npft wrar-^t iten ^rflsn «mhuii
dk W afftpRPT HKf 139 Rft 99-9TO (I)
^ afd J to «ir Awri Tugn ur4 ^ 'Pfrt ftfa

<1* ^9H»RgRI AftMfl 4IWIPKI ^ 0+BWftfl

^tar m(| 9 friltS *imvk # 4mfU4*K 794
JtM'M ^lljJ4d 3TC9I m?Wi fl*t TRJt

(iv) #1^ 4 o I Ph > aqjfaH 3 sigifaH ^

ftiH mm irai iiywi nftt mi 95PF Rtqv , i
<fl|J|| -S^T av^«i ifol idol finld U» THU rl«(f
■lAmm CRT Riftci TTOlfal ft«RWf ^ Hfil TOfT

oA | m

2- tUO>H W OlPHI ^ TPf*ft Rft 3TgRtfTO

' ll'MI i -

m 4uii^ l ■*& (iii) 4F JfcviRyw ^9i

arum

(9) 4oWM) 1 TH^OHnF (iii) ff dftwflSfl ore-fl
Ttanr frrti 9^1 9^*11; surer

C*l) Aiihi'b 1 4* ^T-^wmi'h (iv)^^nftra4mPRv
aq^faH ^ far? mm *tre "nu sg<w nfti sn arm
fim«i omm

(9) worn ®qsfaR "wrf mono mrn to 4*0 9*wi

dqefVH 4i|J| 0»^I1 4»l flltM *rtT HWI <4I<( I II;
srerer

Cm) ’3TO Pi4m<^l ^ Pish 5*13|h 5 m ^ to*i "oBo

sm jifiifinH m is m?-ura (0 *
w (fi) ^ hhomT ^ aqw 9ff oto

30W HW-I Oiloil

[OlDt^lOt 57/2008m^ 20S/5(V2000-91L%1^-1I]

mu, orar ofm

New Delhi, the 30th April, 2008

S.O. 984.—H is hereby notified for general
information thattbe oigeiiizatfon Rajiv Gandhi Foundation,
Jawahar Bhiwm, Dr. Rgtjeudra Prasad Road, New Delhi,
has been approved by the Centra] Government for the
purpose of clause, (ii) of subjection {1) of Section 3 S of
the Anoom^-tax Act, 1961 (said ActX read with Rules 5C
and 5E of the Income-tax Ruks, 1962 (said Rules), with
effect hum t-4-2006 in the category of'ether

Institution’, partly engaged in research activities subject
to the following conditions, namely:

(0 The sums paid to the approved otgamiatioit shall
■ be utilized for scientific research;

(t£) The approved arganiscion shall carry out scientific
research through its faculty members or its enrolled
students;

(iii) The approved organization shall maintain separate
, books of accounts in respect of the sums received
by it for scientific research, reflect therein the
amounts used for carrying out research, get snob
books audited by an accountant as defined in the
explanation to subjection (2) of Section 288 of the
said Act and furnish the report of such audit duly
signed and verified by such accountant to the
Commissioner of income-tax or the Director of
Income-tax having jurisdiction over die case, by
the due date of furnishing the return of income
under sub-section (I) of Section 139 of the said
Act;

(Iv) The approved organization shall maintain
a separate statement of donations received and
amounts applied for scientific research and a
copy of such statement duly certified by the auditor
shall accompany the report of audit referred to
above.

2- The Central Government shall withdraw the
approval if the approved organization:

(a) fails to mrtitaln separate books of accounts referred
to in sub-pamgpaph (iii) of paragraph I; or

(b) foils to furnish its audit report referred to in sub-
paragraph(iii) of paragraph l; or

(c) foils to furnish its statement of the donations
received and sums applied for scientific research
referred to in subparagraph (iv) of paragraph 1; or

(d) ceases to carry on its research activities or its
research activities are not found tr be genuine; or

(ft) ceases to conform to and comply with the
prcmuons ofclause (if) of sub-section (1) oFSecthm

2104

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA:MAY 10 , 2 () 0 */VAISAKHA 20 , 1930

[Part LI— Sec. 3(ii>]

35 of the said Act read with rules 5C and 5E of the
said Rules.

[NotifteatonNo. 57/2flO«/F.No. 203/50tt00B/lTAdl]
SURENDER PAL, Under Secy,
fetff, 30 z&ft, 2003

’W.W, 98S.-ti4^|tiK u i ^ <*n<y;iti

HI? SlfatjjHcT fell ^ fe 5Tt1

Um*u \ r 1962 (W PmiRcft) ^ feRT 5*1 cTO! fF ^
TTO Hfel 3TfW ^fwr F 1961 ^IFT

35 (1) (iii) ^

1-4-20% Tt TFT3R TITta HTeft W^ p

TW, TTS, fe# ^ ftHfrlRdcl TTcTf ^ ^#T
^ srj&tiH ^ i ^trimT R rhL 'zw
ajjifrfe fen w i^ RIHR:-

(l) +^0*1 TRjT Rftl ^T GH*lbl *UHlP=iq>

R h* f^rn fen ^rtnr H

Cii) argiftfe trier wri tfeih wif artf
HIHlT+fl fef ^ MltilH ^ TTPnfer feR 3
atgrrmR ststrt wfefen ^rgrtfer r^ht?

(iii) ~: HjHlfcd tttor WTlfeF feip $ sgOTR ^
fet( "SRI "STP^T TTRtT SIRF *ami Wt

"toKt fen? argrrmR Rf Ifit* ngw Tifyi
^ ^ ^ r sm arfMPm ^ W7T 238 ^ ^T-
VRl (2) ^ ^ 'HU'Hlfta feft

^ <H«i nto ^hi*v n

afa RRR atfMwi tTRl 139 R*t ^T-^l (l)
^ STcPfcT 3TR tawl ^ ^ felfl fel

ET ^ ^^TRiK &KJ <Hr4|fHa

FteT *rcfe feri tshrtroK vsh ^

WR -STFJHR 3TTWI Pl^fMi ^

qi^nl

(ivl arpife #rr TTrafer fen r SF^fet ^
fej HR HIE ’TOT H*pE TlfSr E^I fem
T^Tl 44*^43 t^3T HTlfilTT ^ TTlVf rT^T
^FTT wnfe Fqq^i ^ TricT HTp

fenil

2. +IM ^T5 ^ifw ^ ^Fft 3<i*i*iftn

knoi :

(T) 1 ^ (iii) ^f ^f^Tfel

^T Wf ^f T^Tl; ?RT^1

(W) %HFF I ^ (iii) t? ^f^fel OT4t

htNjt frM H^gci ^ ^Vrf;

(Tl) ^ITTHF L ^^1-ferFF (iv) ^f

fen argHfer am ^rfe^fhr a^fer ^

HR ’R H^T tlftl HJT ^TEIT
Hlff Tfe; afl^

(’EJ) -3FHI ■^RTTtTR HTT4 HsTTT ^ ^TTl ^TtRT
afTJ^^R ^Ff Tl ^14^ ^Tlff HR wi; ^Ti^T

(T) W rn^H I ^ ^ fern 5H 3fe 5^ ^ ^TtT HfefT
HTf HTH 35 ^ Tl-HRT (I ) ^
TT 1 ^ tiii) ^ Hl^VTHf ^ R^f fl J H HVT
OTf HTRR R^f RkHTI

[flfq^n?!. 5S/2O0S^T + ^ 203/50/2008-3aHiA-|T]

^HIR,

New Delhi, the 30tb April, 2008

S.O. 9SS + “H is hereby notified for general infor¬
mation that the organization Rajiv Gandhi Foundation,
Jawahar Bhawan, Dr. Kajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi,
has been approved by the Central Government for the
purpose of clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of Section 35 of
the Income-tax Act, 1961 (sa id Act), read with rules 5C and
5 E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (said Rules) with eftbet
from M-200G in the category of other Institution" partly
engaged in research activities subject to the following
conditions, namely:—

(i) The sums paid In the approved organization shall
be utilized for research in social sciences;

(ii) The approved organ izat ion shal l carry out research
in social science or statistical research through iis
laculty mem hers or Els enrolled students;

(iii) The approved organization shall maintain separate
books ofaccoun(s in respect of the sums received
by it for scientific research, reflect therein the
amounts used for carrying out research, get such
books audited hy an accountant as defined in the
exp lanation to su b-section (2) of Section 2 BS of the
said Act and furnish the report of such audit duly
signed and verified by such accountant to (he
Commissioner of Income-tax or the Director of
Income-tax having jurisdiction over the case, by
the due date of furnishing the return of income
under sub-soetion (I) of Section 139 of the said
Act;

(iv) The approved organization shall maintain a
separate statement of donations received and
amounts applied for research iit social sciences and
a copy of such statement duly certified by the
auditor shall accompany the report of audit referred
to above,

3. The Central Government shall withdraw the
approval if the approved organization:

(a) fails to maintain separate books ofaccounts referred
ro in sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph I; or

[WI—3*C3(U)]

wmrtrm 10, 200S/$W*20 J 1920

2105

4

(b) Ms K> furnish Us audittpport referred to in sub*
paragraph (iii)of paragraph I; or

(c) fell* to furnish its statement of the donations
received and sums applied for research in social
sciences or statistical research referred to in sub-
paragraph (iv) of paragraph l;or

. (d) ceases to carry on its research activities or its
research activities are not found to be genuine; or

(e) ceases to conform to and comply with the
provisions of clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of
section 35 of the said Act, read with rales 5C and
5E of the said Rules.

[NotificatooNo. 58/2008/F.No.2D3/50/2008/ITA-II1
SURENDERPAL, Under Secy,
("fatal faim)

2R&200S

mi* r. faim 26 2005 ^

tf. 9/i2/2O04-4sji-i it

fsrtt ipf iwtal 49**0 1970/1980 3 it

m~ms (i) f ms s, 6 aft* 7 ate fas s it irt mz
f 1) ^ tfltf vfafl ^NiUnft U*H| 4 I (dqiMHf mi 3 |*T T>*
3to»T) 1970/1980 ^tW9Uft S^m (3) #

(m) "SRI mi nubi m*fr tor jnfti

AaircdL flht, snailu wuuPim 3 N 1 (oita 76) ^
i$s 1fR*N> ^ 3nqsi si ir*i f-tArw. # ws i
mi^jrcr * from mi 27 mad, 2009 w tor? aratf an^r
vft tot, ^ dl q# t, wr uSt ti

[mi * 20/4/Z0Q5-*! wl-i]

^1. Hi,

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, die 2nd May, 200S

S.O. 986<—In continuation of this Department's
notification No. 9/12/2004-BO.l dated 26th December2005,
and in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of
subjection (3) of section 9 of the Banking Companies
(Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 197 Of
1980rend whh sub-clause (I) of clause 3, clause 5, clause 6,
clause 7 and sub-clause (i) of clause 8 of the Nationalised
Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions)
Scheme, 1970/1980, the competent authority has approved
extension in the tenure of Shri R-P. Singh, IAS (AP;76), as
Chairman and Managing Director, Punjab & Sind Bank
upto 27th February2009 or until Anther orders, whichever
b earlier.

(F.No. 20/4/a005-BO-l]
GB. SINGH, Dy. Secy.

. ’lififc#, 7 **,2008
9S7,—,^N» ( jw-^i y<fcM dwt)

toSh. I97W1980 i; ms 3 it m-ms ( 1 ), ms 5 , ms

e, ^>5 7 ms 8 it ^T Tans (i) ■% bi*t qfea

. IstviO (^wiT mr apte ir aRR*r) aiflifWi,
1970/1980 i?i tiro 9 ’afl , ’3>i-RTO 3 ms (m) era tra
mi Titer mil ir, £q(Ni TOmrc, i^hi, Hitfllq
ft** te TtFfff it, tft TR."*t mst (7RT firfq :
9-11-1952), wm ^ ^ $|for TOITO* m

'Rqrc "te cnfl*i it tte 30-11-2012 mt, *it^

e-iafl siftj’srSni eft te difltfi tim 3 t*rt

tfll^H sW net, tft ^1, ^Nl 4iT*r iski ^ 5048 ^

Pi^wt ^ ms ^ mUt f i

{m, 9/18/2007-^ ^ft-l]

^1, dt,

New Delhi, the 7th May,2008

S.O. 987.—In exHcise of the powers conferred by
clause (a) of subjection (3) of section 9 of the Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)
Act, 1970/1980 read with sub clause (1) of clause 3, clause
5, clause 6, clause 7 and sub-clause (1) of clause 8 of the
Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous
Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government,
after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, hereby
appoints Shri M.D. Mallya (DoB: 9-11-1952), Chairman
and Managing Director, Bank of Maharashtra as Chairman
and Managing Director, Bank of Baroda. from the date of
his taking charge of die post and till 30-11-2012, i.e. his
date of superannuation or until Anther orders, whichever
is earlier.

[F. No. W18/2007-BO-l]
G B. SINGH, Dy. Secy.

( (dhu huui )

5 Bj, 2008

W t *f, 988.-^ ftfUMWItll, ]939 ^ frw 60 i
am ■qfto dtra nfliPiqH, 1938 ^ wb i liw Hi
(i) "Bra ttoi oftiP? rnnnibi trojr,

it ifl. rrtr ^ afk apitf <sn^i

fft -ft. 7R ^ wh "ra, "'nmMt Bftfii ^ ^

1201 8/2/2006-dim-iV(m) ]

(Insurance Division)

New Delhi, the Jth May, 2008

S.O. 988.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of the section 110G of the Insurance Act,
1938 read with the rule 60 of the Insurance Rules, 1939 the
Centra] Gov^nunent hereby appoint to Sh, B. D, Banerjee
as a Member of the Consultative Committee vice Shri G. V.
Raowith muuediate effect and until further orders.

[F. No. 12018/2/2006-his. IV(iii)J
S. K. JINDAL, Dy. Secy,

2106

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 10, 2008/VAJ SAKHA 20, 1930

(Part II—Sec 3<K)1

HHO tJilllH fil 4)141 mi 141M
^rtjr finrnr)

4$f^#,3Q 2008

W,WT* 989.-MH {3RlfM^r^33T f^)
3lfi|fi*PT, 1971 ^^*5 3 (1971 4>t 40) CTTH^I Jflfal-tf
WjNPl afa 4ITcT ^ 7R44 *44 Tl, "BF5-3,

3TO®5 (iij 3 Rif* 7 1w4T, 1991 fef 28

3PTC3, 1991 4?i Sdpl^HI ir®n 44.34. 2303 4^ 3rf^9p*l®l

gn (twin cirRi^ji ^ ^RW (1) oRrmleRI

^fwfl ^ *17447 TTSTHflni ^ 3lW ^ TTO

3iftnKrit ^ ^ 4ilt, ^

3|fa4!l^ ^ ^ 4ivil f I ^ 3*KI (llft?l^»l ^ <WflH

(2) *1 ftfM^ <hi4'4*i+ **ih 4i 4T7*fii 3n% sfeifaurK 44
pqpflii Tftaife 4? sid'in 344 aifapppi 5171 4*wl strife
fflU 4 ^ JSlfiSlaTf 44 n*il*i ^ F®IT 31^

^iWI 4iT W(i I

mftraJT
1 i

3|fa*lft 4H 4FT L «l4dfH WH ^tMil^ $4lf*WR
4^ TSlfet tft9IU

31tfte^ 2*ftfem BITrfa iflwlPwll 115*114, 3

VK<f|4| jMftPld>) 3IWI1 ^ *l| 3Jqqi

. *f7*H4,*p^ T734^ 1JRT4T 3fa *1 4Pft4^ ““(ft,

«ft ilWWpi'b 1fef8°t ^ 3IRfl "tl

C^li 1-37/2006-2LT5& ll
«|J'S ?|NR, JR1

MINISTRY OF HUMAN KESOURCEDCVELOFMENT

(Department of Higher Education)

New Delhi, the 30th April, 2008

S.O. 989.—In exercise of the powers conferred
by section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), and in
. supersession of its notification number SO, 2303, dated
the 28th August, 1991, published in the Gazette of India,
Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) dated the 7th
September, 1991, the Central Government hereby
appoints the officer mentioned in column (1) of the Tabic
below, being the officer equivalent to the rank of a
gazetted officer of the Government, to be estate officer
for the purposes of the said Act, who shall exercise the
powers conferred, and perform the duties imposed, on
estate officer by or under the said Act, within the local
limits of his jurisdiction in respect of the public premises
specified in column (2) of the said Table.

table

1

2

Designation of
the Officer

Categories of public premises and
local limits of jurisdiction

Superintending
Engineer, Indian
Institute of

Premises belonging to or ta*en on
lease or requisitioned by or on
betedf of the Indian Institute of

Technology,

Bombay.

Technology, Bombay and which are
under its administrative control.

[F.NOt l-37/2006-TS.l]

YATENDRA KUMAR, Under Secy.

TJtpfT aftr TOFT TT3tm

4^ Rcrfl, 15 , 2008

4tU*T. 990.-4#44 (TPtprpf) IHIIHWW), 1983 ^
Fihs 9 fe 7TT4 nfici ■qcTf'ifl ■3TfMf*44, 1952 4?1 vm 5 4S
3W17T (2) 5171 TJ^tT SlfifcHtT 44 3Rt4 4Rt tU+U,

flft’g4J4I^1l ti ILi|,afn^^4TT: 1995, snftfe +1*11$+It,
^441 H7444 4?t4TOJcT 5T414 Tf 12000-375-16500

*4*1 ^ StraiT ^01-01-2008 (l^T)

*t4R 44f 4tl 44T, #

tWnrmvpt wi, *W,mi ^iw aiftrmt

i ^ jj'Ki

[44. H 801/8/2097

7ffelffe,ffe7I47 (fa**!)
MINISTRY OF INFORMATION & BROADCASTING
New Delhi, the 15th Januaiy, 2008

S.O. 990.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub- section (2) of Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act,
1952 read with rule 9 oft he Cinematograph (Certification)
Rules, 1983, the Central Government U pleased to appoint
Shri Subrata Mukhopadhyay, IES : 1995, Dy. Economic
Adviser, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, as
Regional Officer, Central Board of Film Certification,
Kolkata in the pay-scale of Rs. 12000*375.(6500 on
deputation basis for a period of four years w.e.f, 01 -01-2008
(FN) or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

(F.No. 801/8/2007-F(C)J
SANGEETA SINGH, DiiwtorfFilms)
4^ ’fo#, 17 tS44f(,2008

W.3HT. 991,-FF 41ltV4 4Tf 1*414? 31 M, 2007 4t(
’5tf4Pf441 4i jTjaTR 3flr "44144 (’UHI'JM)

fwtRrff, 1983 ^ fnw 7 Stir a 4f 4M 4^4 43*144
«f#rq4, 1952 (19524H 37) 4it 4RT5 4?t44414(1) 3R1
?ir<KH<|T 4f1 mhVi , =f)<^ ^7 onDieT 4414 ^ ^

3Fferfte( 4? 144 41 314^ SIKTlf 44?, ift 4F^ ?t,
^tf[l ItpeTj TtRIvpT 4^ ^-lei 4. 7P/PI

^ #1tf1 Tt. 101, /ftfeiUT

4# 4. 6 Fsmifd 44T, ^444T4-500029 4^ 11

[44. 71. 809/1/2007-t^ <4ft)]
fl’ilfll fife, ffe7I4? (l4Tr=4)

[WTll-^RV53(ii)J

'WlilPlI 10, 2006/^1^20,1930

2107

New Delhi, the 17lh January, 2008
9.0. 901.—In Continuation of this Ministry's
Notification of even number dated 31st May, 2007 and in
exercise of die powers conferred by sub-section (I) of
SectRm5 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) read
with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph ( Certification )
Rules,1983, the Central Government is pleased to appoint
the Smt D.SrilaxmL, 101, Ravikifan Apartments, Street
No. 6, HimayatNagar, Hyderabad- 500029 as a member of
the Hyderabad Advisory Panel of the Central Board of
Film Certification with immediate effect for a period of two
years or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

(F.No, 809/1/2007-F(Q]
SANGEETA SINGH, Director (Films)
fe?l u fl, ft 2008

tow. 992.—5F TfareR tift ft-ti* i3 fetitir. 2007
tiS wtoff stftRjsni tit til sftr (jjhium)
flwMIdcfl, 1983 ^ “PlTO 7 8 tifltil tifel tiWfaH

atlWpw, 1952 (1952 W 37) tift TO 5 WTO (1) m
■aw w mVi to$1 +it<hk wratit tit

^ Sltift 1 wfe TRij til til til,

few HHian ti* fevS twuuuw 'tticltii ^
WT ti # rofe HpA, Rife TT T^-416, tl^r-ll,

3^ ral until ^1

[’Flu 809/7/2007 -TJT (tit)]
aiftflLl (toe*0

New Delhi, the 8th February, 2008
S.O. 992.—In continuation of this Ministry's
Notification of even number dated 13th September, 2007
and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1)
of Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952),
read with rates 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph ( Certification )
Rules. 1983, the Certral Government is pleased to appoint
the ShriManoj Mono, FlalNo.H-416, Typc-HNanak Pura,
New Delhi as a member of the Delhi Advisory Panel of the
Central Board of Film Certification with immediate effect
for a period of two years or until further orders, whichever
is earlier.

[F.No.809/7/2007-F(C)J
AMITABH KUMAR, Difocior(Films)
8 4Rtift, 2008

Uit.ilt, 993.—titkrld till ttiHfe 6 2007 till

Tmtiwur edtitfcHi ^ appro tif afir TOifti* (rowni)
fkroraril, 1983 ^ ftro 7 tik 8 ^ Fro ti3<T tiFiftis
3rfMPm, 1952 (1952 WSI37) # TO 5 ti^WTO (]) TO
WfcAltiT <hl Hal 1 ! tintt jJtjtiiS qmm m*ii«i titii

rof wife tit fen ni am^ oti^nY ciu>, til tit x nr^ til,
*o Pm*l. h*ii u ii titinvn- i asttl ^

Tptiti PlHfefefl W|f(|d4f wit Fi^qo ^»tol
1 . til Tffel W 1*1 W&,

arffeUT TOF, Wl, &XIK HLUI'rl'1 tittt,

. titiF wro, ■'Front tii,

69,

2 tit tilfe 7FTOW 31*155,

1/106, TJ ftiti ftHI'14 tit t?H

fa fRti Tte tifa* tit UFti. fenfira ^ 51 , <ns$u,

^ -34

1 m < 4 * 1*4

5?ltit 38, 75 T^T Rlti,

3*^7,

A ‘51. 4tti-ll TII^,

1 5i*iTi*i * 'prci nn«ntl ^ Hm,

TO til (5.},ti3ti - 56

5. ^tit ■tiHlfM'til W,

^-602,31$ TOfefeTt 28,31RT(F-^,22,#EIS,
dlt^4 Ffeun, ^-67.

[■'ft. u mmam-W'

3TttitPT^5R, (foTOT)

New Delhi, the 8lh February, 2008
S.O. 993.—In continuation of this Ministry's
Notification of even number dated 6th August, 2007 and
m exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of
Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) read
with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph (Certification )
Rules, 1983 the Certral Government is pleased to appoint
the following persons as members of the Mumbai Advisory
Panel of the Central Board of Film Certification with
immediate effect for a period of two years or until further
orders, whichever is earlier:

1. Shri Mukesh Chandranath Sharma,

Adhikar Bhavan, 2nd Floor, Exit Matadin Gauri,
Shankar Bhavan, Old Nagardas Road,

Andhert (East), Mumbai - 69.

2 Shri Santosh Jagannath Avhad,

] /106, A Wing, Sinhagad CHS,

Opp. Great Easton Royal Tower,

Bellasis Bridge, Tanteo, Mumbai - 34,

3. Dr. Raj Tendulkar,

Dalvi Hospital, 38, N. S. Patkar Marg,

Mumbai - 7.

4. Dr. Archana Shah,

‘Kum Kum’ Ground Floor, Near Nanavati Hospital,

S. V. Road, Vile Parte (W), Mumbai- 56,

5. Ms. Anamika Jha,

A* 602, Sai Dham, Plot No.28, RSC-22, Sector 8>
Charkdp Kandivali West, Mumbai - 67

[F. No. 809/4/2007-F(C)j
AMITABH KUMAR, Director (Films)
^ft77ft,8tiF?rt,2008

TOSR. 994.-571 titiim 29-3-2007 tS

^ tif tiTlftiti (FtiPFU
Ft4H I U? f, 1983 ^ fWT 7 8 tiW TfeF HHPtM

1952 (1952ti5T37)^TO5^57TO(l)0ra
TRtT Tlfeltif 4F rokT to! ^ tiftr tK<hll cft+fel 3TTO ^ ^
ati til srafit ti Etin 7T 3 pfI nii, tilt tii 'titi tit,
ferB HRItH titaf ^ ti 5 ^ WHIFtiiH fetEt ^ ^

1526 GiroS—2

2108

[Part II—Sec. 3(ii)|

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 10, 2008/VAlSAKUA 20, 1930

^ 5T. 89-^-3,

<i«^ r +HN^W «ft), dftMHI^-625520,

[TO 4 809/2/2007-TJ'F < flf) ]
$ll*K1l*1 ( ShkTH )

New Delhi, the 8th February, 2008

S.o. 994.—In continuation of this Ministry's
Notification of even number dated 29*03-2007 and in
exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (l) of
Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) read
with rales 7 and S of the Cinematograph { Certification)
Rules*) 983 the Central Government is pleased to appoint
Dr. P. Patchaimal, Director, CENDECT, 89-A/B-3, West
Street, Kanurchipuram (SO), Theni District, Tamil Nadu-
623 520, as a member of the Chennai Advisory Panel of the
Central Board of Film Certification with immediate effect
for a period of two years or until further orders, .whichever
is earlier.

[F.No, S0fc'2/2007-F(O]

AMITABH KUMAR. Director (Films)

M fo#, 8 2008

**3IT. 995.-58 fcrar 31-5-2007

^ -ff sfo wUi orfft)
■pratra^ft, 1983 Iwr 7 sfa 8 ^ ^ir*T T tfet rteffa*
BfWFPT, 1952 (1952 *T37) m 3 3s) (]) -grtr

VfPhWi’ TPth «WK flohlH TrtTT3 ^

s4 ^ (Vin 3pj^ 4n^i[ nm, ^11

few n»iitin ^ ^ni6<t>K ^ y<w

Wf 9f] TtW sjtsfTO, tffiR < 12-12-6/3,

HttKi^c-522601 , J Rrai- 7 RT ami ^ frtfRl TO<ft $ l

t'fil R 809/1/200? -T^r (^t) ]
atftram ^RiT, (fwR)

New Delhi, the Bth February, 200G

5*Q> 995.—In continuation of this Ministry's
Notification of even number dated 31-5-2007 and in exercise
of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5 of
the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (3 7 Of 195 2) read with rules 7
and ft of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1 9 Sj the
Central Government i$ pleased to appoint Shri Melatn Sree
Krishna* Door No. 12-12-6/3* Prakash Nagar, Narasaraopet-
522601* Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh as a member of
the Hyderabad Advisory Panel of the Centra] Board of
Film Certification with immediate effect for a period of two
years or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

£F, No, 809/1/2007 -F(C)]
AMITABH KUMAR, Director (Films)

W.3IT. 996 + -PT fc.Hhh | ] 2007 ^5

^ ^ (fpn)

r-wwtii, m3 ^ Iwr 7 <sh 8 ^ ~m ^rfor

1052 (1952 37) ^ m 5 ^ *W0 (\ ) ^RT

3T5jt *i[qn*if T ^nrrT ^ m^t-in ^ Tt

^ 3Rftf ^ t^TR ~m 3PT^ T H?H TT

tWI W*H ^ ^ ^

^ IT

rft + (ift , *krlH 5 C^r) ^ frgl^g t I

[m ^f. 809/6/2007-T^(^ft)']
^TTT> 1% (fWiT}
New Delhi, the Bth February^ 200ft
S.O. 996.—In continuation of this Ministry 1 !;
Notification of even number dated 11th July, 2007 and in
exercise of the powers conferred by inb-section (]) of
Section 5 ofihe Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) read
with rules 7 and S of the Cinematograph ( Certification )
Rules, 1983 [he Centra! Government is pleased to appoint
Smt.Shahida Kama!, Afsal Cottage, T,K.M,C,(PO), Kollam
5 (Kerala) as a member of the Thiruvananlhapuram
Advisory Panel of the Central Board of Film Certification
with immediate effect Ibr a period of two years or until
further orders, whichever is earlier.

[RNo,809/ff2007-F(C)]
AMITABH KUMAR, Director (Films)

^ ferfr, 12 ’'FTWt, 2008

«fiT,3TT. 997 .^ R-H* 5 2008 Tt

W T W ; W. 'ff 3^ rtdfrt5| (MPH)

fTw^iT, 1^83 ^ fwr 3 ^ Tf^l wf^l
SrfVfaR 1Q52 ( I 952 <£T 3 7) (FT W! 3 ^ ( !) Wt

^i) w'h'mi ■Ti'.a ^

33^V ^ f^TC. T)T 33^ $\ i^i’f ^ ^

^l'sil H ^ ^ ^ 33rT^>T

fw ^1 i i

[mtf. 809/n/2007-T^(^r)]

^’■[lui finw, )

New Delhi, the 12th February, 2008'

S.O. 997,—In continuation of this Ministry’s
Notification ofeven number dated 5th February, 2008 and
in exercise of the poweis conferred by sub-section (1) of
Seel ion 3 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) rend
with rule 3 of the Cinematograph (Certification ) Rules,
1983, Ihe Central Government is pleased to appoint!
Smt. AlkaSingh as a mein her of the Central Board of Film
Certification with immediate effect for a period of three
years or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

LF. No. 809/11/2007 -F(C)J
b ANGEETA SINGH, Director (Fi hns)

^ %#, 25 TR^| r 2008

*X3TT, 998,-^rlNiH (8HNH) fHilWdl, 1983 ^
■prtm 3 qfetT Tieir^ ^qftrfrqrr, 1952 (1952 ^37)

«lRf 5 ^ ^ (1} 3TtA (32 ^RT TITcT SflfarFlT

[TO1II—TO^ii)]

TOtt TO wn |0, 2008/^*119 20, 1930

2109

3rakTTO^5K3?5 WfcR/fR+Kl fwarftrppw^

iwirpi niiltsi ^ Jll 3Wftl ^ 1*1^ Wl^ .cw>,
^ *lt ¥1, Rne^ 1PPR OTfK^t STftTOor^TCPnfr

tot "*lf <ft faro traroft ^ hh^ni fn^w TOik $i

[TO ^ 011/6/2007-1^ (nft) ]
ifH^l flfi?, (1*FF0
New Delhi, die 25th February, 2008

S.O. 998,—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (!) and (3)©fSection,5D of the Cinematograph
Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) read with rule 43 ofthe Cinematograph
Act (Certification) Rules, 1983, the Central Government
hereby appoints Shtri Vijay Panjwani as a member of the
Film Certification Appellate Tribunal fora period of three
years from the date publication of this notification in the
Official Gazelle or until further orders, whichever is earlier,

[ F. No. 81 l/6/2O07-F(C)J
SANGEETA SINGH, Director (Films)
25 TOflt,2O08

TOOT, 999, -W TOBTOT ^ fitTO? 29-3-2007 ^
towsto ofaqroi ^ otjtor cf sfe toIto (tofto)
pPPTITOfr, 19*3 ^ ftTO 7 afa 8 ^ Wt lifer
SlfapPPI, 1952 (1952 TO 37) TOT5 "mm (I) 5FI
TOTT KlT<M<lT *61 Tritbl TO?! "5^1^ fTPFrr npiiiri PR ^ rfl

fld ?fl 3wf*i ^ OT^if tot, ^ ?l,

tojr iro*r vron w to ^=r$ ^wpihjtor to

TOI ^ sft TOFfpiR TP-^fr, 5-tt, TO3=T T$Z, f WH+H
TOnro1ip?i-0290(U, f^ti- ^-tuvniO aft %ro TOtfr t \

[TO 809/2/2007-TO* (#)]
w>n<sr f&g, (fTO5*T)

New Delhi, the 25th February, 2008

S*0. 999.—In continuation of this Ministry's
Notification of oven number darted 29-03-2007 and in
exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (l) of
Section 5 of the Cinemato^^^ph Act, 1952 <37 of (952) read
with rules 7 and 3 of the Cinematograph (Certification )
Rules, 19B3 the Central Government Is pleased to appoint
Shri* Jayakumar RP*> 5-D Crown Street* Krishriancoil*
Nagercoil- 629001, Kanyakumari District as a member of
the Chennai Advisory Panel ofthe Central Board of Film
Certification with immediate effect for a period of two years
or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[RNo.809Q/2007-PtC)J
SANGEETASINGH, DirectorfFifriis)
^ft55ft,2STOS3,20OB

TO.OT, 1000 .—"PC *MI©im IW 4 © 13 PEki«k,20Q7
to) wfw ^ (jwm-D

fcroratft, 1983 ^ 1 ¥fi 7 3^8 ^ ^fei TOrfro

afefNro, 1952 (1952 to 37) ^ «rm 5 ^ (1) wi

"H^T Tlfepif TO life "5b TOTOI ^cTO^T BSTO ^ ^1
OTTO TOT, 4

iTOTO jmi-n TTO18TOT ^ w <$>

TOT 3 Sft TTftlTOI 58, ^=rf tTO*T OTTlS^ET, ftTOH
yt, 3^ i?T5#-E8 ^ft Prjftu •ntrfl i I

[TO 809/7/2007-t^ (*&)]
TOtmfW, P-I^ITO (ftTOT)
New Delhi, the 25th February, 200S

S.O. 1000.—In continuation of this Ministry's
Notification of even number dated 13th September, 2007
and m,exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub-section (I)
of Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952{37ofl952)
read with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph (Certification)
Rules, 1983 the Central Government is pleased to appoint
Shri, Satinder Mohan, 58, Surya Kiran Apartment, Vikas
Puri, New Delhi -18 as a member of the Delhi Advisory
Panel of the Central Board of Film Certification with
immediate effect for a period of two years or until further
orders, whichever is earlier.

[F, No. 809/7/ 2007 -F(Q]
SANGEETA SINGH, Director (Films)
25 i '*t e iJ]p 200E

W + 3IT + 1001,-W ^5t Rim* 6 fliw, 2007

^ iwteHi srfit^n ^ srpflr afc wtfwi (w^n)
1933 ^ fwr 7 A 8 tmfcT TlfecT xMfiM
1952 (1951'37) trm 5 (1)^RT

!RjT ’gH ^3! WfHt ^ ^

STTftr ^ feq zn 3FT^ 3T|^ ^

^T PfafTH HHI U I P 1 ^ ^ ^

~¥^ ^ ^1* FT.^. Tte

W ^ 16, ^vRTT ^10 Z fpralf^p ^ -34, ^

Pi^mi ^<1?! ^ I

[W. R 8D9/7/2O07-TPF (#}]

wfcu fm, him* (Iwr)

New Delhi, [he 25th Febmaiy p 200S

S.O. 1001.—In continuation of this Ministry 1 ^
Notification of even number dated 6th August, 2007 and
in exercise or the powers conferred by sub-section (I) of
Section 5 ofthe Cinematograph Act p 1952 <37of 1952) read
with rules 7 and 3 of the Cinematograph (Certification )
Rules, 1983 the Central Government is pleased to appoint
Shri, Vitthal Bhaurao Ubate. BIT Camp, S.P> Shed Chawl
No* H\ Room No. 1 Q> Tulshiwadi, Tardeo* Mumbai-34 asa
member of the Mumbai Advisory Panel of the Central
Board ofFilm Certification with immediate effect for a period
of two years or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[Fr No, 809/4/ 2007-FfC)!
SANGEETA SJNGH, Director (Films)

2110

[Pmt II—Sec, 3(iiJ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 10, 2Q0S/VAISAKHA 20,1930

^ 25 2008

1002,-3*1 WTO ftTTFF 11 ipnt 2007

1983 ^ 7 atfh 8 ^ *n*J ^TfeTT ^ff^T

3Tf^TOR, L952 (1952^37)^ W5^^mRl(O^T
3 WH Vif^n^T ^T >i-hI j i ^ ’H^ii tunnel 3 TCT^ ^

^?f 3Rtfa ^ ffrTT ^1 aPTc* sn^ff cT^> d Tf ^t,

fFe*T Wf ^ ^ MWT ^!cT ^

^ ^ ^ feifcT vh, ww,

mtft t$z, rawdaw ^MSOi ^rf^j

[tR*?, S09/fi/2007-T^ (*ft)]

■tftftirffi? 1 , fn^i* (few)

New Delhi, the 25th February, 2008

S-O- 1002,—[it continuation of this Ministry's
Notification of even number dated \ 1th Juty + 2007 and in
exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of
Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act* 1952 (37 of 1952),
read with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph { Certification)
Rule$,19B3 the Central Government is pleased to appoint
Shri Vincent De Paul M r , Karanya, Vattavilakathu Veedu,
RC. Street, Balaramapuram, Thiruvananthapuram-695 5 01
as a member of the Thinivananthapuram Advisory Panel
of the Central Board of Film Certification with immediate
effect for a period of two years or until further orders,
whichever is earlier.

F^mmooi-nc)]

SANG BETA SINGH, Director (Films)

^ F^wf, 26 T PT^Tt J 2008

*>T.3Tf 1003 .HJHAM ftHH* 3 1 ^ 2007
WW&tt ^ ^ 3 k (WFO

'pPCTTOrft, 1983 ^ 7 S ^ W*T itfei wfe*

3Tfafa*m., 1952 ( 1952 37) ^ TO 5 ( 1 ) STO

UTtT ^fifqti^i TT y qVi fir=bid J 5rtTI^ *t

^ ^ %t7 ^ 3n^flf W h 4 W?) fTF,

fs*rH 'whe^h ^ ^ t-l'vH

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Ft^qa ’5F# t l

[TO *T B09/I/2007-W (*ft)3

+ 01 U 11 fllE, Ft^iqi ( Rf*r*i)

New Delhi, the 26th February* 2008

S.O. 1003.—In continuation of this Ministry's
Notification of even number dated 31st May d 2007 and in
exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (I] of

Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act p 1952 (37 of 1952),
read with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph (Certification)
Rules, 1983 the Central Government is pleased to appoint
Ms. D. Vijayalakshmi as a member of the Hyderabad
Advisory Panel of the Central Board of Film Certification
wilh immediate effect for a period of two years or until
further orders, whichever is earlier*

[F.No.8(Wl/2O07-FCC)J
SANG BETA SINGH, Director (Films)
^ felt. 27Hlffl#, 2008

cEt.SIT. 1004.“ nr TnFFT Tl fr# 8 35?^ 2007

^ srfa^enT t 3 sjfc werfasr Chr^h)

'fwr^f f 1983 ^ fm 1 S ^ *T 1 *T TTfeCT wfol

sifaftro, 1952 C1952 37) g>t yFis^rr^mi CD SRT

TO#af^npinTW

■3raf?J ^ ftlV, ^IT 3 *i^iT 3Hi, flfr ^ *lp<^

[vn*i ^Is ^ MTIlIJ'ttK ^l p 1< F 1 ^ +1^+*! ^

^9 i st ^3^ ^TP WJ, ^ ^ H - 23/1,

^9^, g^W-751009 f I

[W ^r. 809/2/2006-T^ (^J]

^rnnm (F^e^O

New Delhi, the 27th Febmary, 2008

5.0. 1004.—In continuation of this Ministry Vi
NotlficatEon eleven number dated 8th January, 2D07 and
in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection [I) of
Section 5 of the Cinematograph Atf* 1952 (37 ofl952) read
with rufes 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph ( Certification )
Rules, 1983 the Central Government is pleased to appoint
Shri Ak&haya Kumar Pati n Q.No. V A-23/1, Unit-2 > Janpath n
Bhubaneswar-751009 as a member of the Cuttack Advi&ory
Panel of the Centra! Board of Film Certification wish
immediate effect for a period of two years or until further-
orders, whichever is earlier,

[FVNo, BO9/2/2006“F(C)]
AM1TABH KUMAR, Director (Films)

28Ti^ f 2008

’qiT.STT. 1005,—frra? 29-3-2007 ^
TPTTT^R? 3TfsT^SRl ^ 3iflT ^erfV^ (W 1 ^)

1983 ^ Pm 7 afa 8 ^ w*r uUi
srtVf^H, 1952 {1952 ?R 37) fUTt 5 ^ ^9^1 {I) 5ITT
W\ TPTPT 4ft cct TIT 7TTTP! nr^in ^

3T^fV ^ Rm, 3F!^ "5^ ’<1^!

T5FI ftirlT WJR ^ ^ ^ ^

io, 2008 /$*ira 20 , 1930

2H1

H)8H <lMl,7f. 14/35► IjtjflKHH fjte,

3^ltft' > '^f-600012 ^ 'Pl^ffVCTf i I

[TO ^ 809/2/2007-1^ (#)]

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2008

S.O. 1005,—In continuation of this Ministry’s
Notification of even number dated 29-3-2007and in exercise
of the powers conferred by sub-section {!) of Section 5 of
tbe Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952), read with rules
7 and 8 of (he Cinematograph ( Certification) Rules, 1983
the Central Government is pleased to appoint Shri G.B.
Mohan Gandhi, No. 14/35, Hanumantharayan Koil Street,
Ottery, Chennai-600012, as a member of the Chennai
Advisory Panel of the Central Board of Film Certification
with Immediate effect for a period of two years or until
further orders, whichever is earlier,.

tf\No, 809/2£007-F(C)]

AM1TABH KUMAR, Drrector(FiJms}

1$ftwft,28'R*tf,2008

*»r. 3 ir, 1006 ,-tb 8-1-2007

HHWWh ^ ^ «ik (UPF)

Pwnwtt, 1983 ^ 7 afk 8 ^ ^n*t ifeer

atPiPpm, 1952 (1952TO 37) m 5 ( 1 ) 510

3FT?t V|RhI 4T TO ytik'i 45^ -mwit utwra stmpi ^

wnf afft ^ ftm tit 3pi^ u*, k),

4^4 fhn*H HHl u H kW ^ 4>UtTOfll 4K«f

TO PlHftlflSfl «lfiKI4T ^ Pltj'itl 'tiOlf ^ j—

(1) sfknfi ^hi h<2ItTi4

(2)

(3) ^Nift t^Ft

(4) tfrRift TJdNI dl^+Ck

[TO. 7f. 809/1 /2006-Htf (#)]

^hk, Rw* (ftrw)

_ New Delhi, the 28th February, 2008

S,0, 1006,—In continuation of this Ministry’s
Notification of even number dated 8-1-2007 and in exercise
of the powers conferred by sub-section (]) of Section 5 of
the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) read with rules 7
and 8 of the Cinematograph (Certification ) Rules,1983 the
Central Government is pleased to appoint the following
persons as members of the Kolkaia Advisory Panel of the

Central Board of Film Certification with immediate effect
for a period of two years or until further orders, whichever
is earlier:—

(1) Smt, Chandrima Bhattacharya

( 2 } Shri Sourav Cbakrabcrty

(3) Smt. Kabila Rahamatt

(4) Smt. Sutapa Talukdar

[F.No.8M/l£006-F(Q]
AMITABH KUMAR, Director (Films)
if faSfr, 7 2008

W.MT. 1007.-^ Wfni4Tt^ff^ 13 2007

1983 ^ fpra 7 8 ^

srfqf^PT, 1952 0952^37)^^5 tf^ram(l)snr

Tffariff TOUdkf ^nw« noniei t^f
^ irt 3 ^ ^ffitriqi arod an**# ?rar ( ^ aft TO?l^t p
MMIUM ^ ftcvil Hdt^rt*K ^ WTFt ^
TO ^ flft J UH^l4 ’ftfa 4tlC*il ( ^ft-150, ^ tflbi

-51, eR^rii *6tql

[TO TL 809/7/2007-1^ (4) ]
#fatT fHF, fMfTRr (fTO*D
New Delhi, the 7th March, 2908

S.O. 1007,—In continuation of this Ministry’s
Notification of even number dated 13th September, 2007
and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1)
of Section 5 of die Cinematograph Act, 1952(37 of 1952),
read with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph {Certification)
Rules, 1983 the Central Government is pleased to appoint
Shri Gagan Deep Singh Sahni, C-150, Myfield Gandens,-
Sector-51, Gurgoon, Haryana as a member of the Delhi
Advisory Panel of the Central Board of Film Certification
with immediate effect for a period of two years or until
further orders, whichever is earlier

[F,No, 809,7/2007-F(C)]
SANGEETA 5JNGH, Director(Films)

12 2008

W.31T, 100*.-Htk^FT^M^traT 13 ftKJEiT, 2007

fwinrefl, 1983 ^ Vm 7 afc 8 ^ -m ifed

1952 (1952^137) 5 (I) 5R1

Vlf^TItjt 4)1 ^ flWhMd THM ^ ^

7 ^ ^iTsrfV ^ fSTh TJt 3rip?l t!^, #

2112

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA:MAY 10, 2008/VA1 SAKHA 20,1930

(Wh WIIMsR ^

FlHftlfaM Mlwf fl^ET ^Trft * ; -

1 + T*F?T

1-51 p feRp %^-Ip ^ 1

1 ‘ST, TRTT ^3H P

iki h c^ h ht^tm ^ft F r*r™i ^ f=R^,
^ fi,<7vrl I

3* ijsft 7 tei twr H

8^/4, ^ ^nT h

^t^rat-60 I

[m U 809/7/2007-^ (Of } ]

wfpnfe, Fh<vi* (fei)

New Delhi, the 12th March, 2008

SkO- 1008.—In continuation of this Ministry 1 *
Notification of even number dated 13th September, 2007
and in exercise of the powers conferred by snb'section (I)
of Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of ]952>,
read with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph (Certification)
Rules, 1983 the Central Government is pleased to appoint
the following persons as members of the Delhi Advisory
Panel of Ihe Central Board of Film Certification with
immediate effect for a period of two years or until further
orders, whichever is earlier

(1) Shri Ramesh Gupta,

1-51, Ashok Vihar d Phase-E ± New Delhi,

(2) Dr. Sardar Khan,

18 J, 3rd Floor, Model Basti h Near Filmistan,

New Delhi,

(3) Miss Geeta Nigam,

8B/4 h NPL Colony, New Rajinder Nagar,

New Delhi-60.

[RNo. 809/7/2G07-F(C)]
SANGEETA SINGH, Director (Films)

■= 1 ? fe#, 12 aoos

BJ.W. 1009.—W hiitih ^ fiii'ti 11 2007

37ftTqtp(T ^ rf afa^TTfet (UHl'O-l)

1983 t IwT 7 afe 8 ^ TIF& sfor
SlOlfem, 1952 (19521ST 37) ^ (l) SRI

^3 (iPtn'iT yql'i ^ 5^, •ti? tKim amin UW iS ^
^1 3l^iv ^ ^1 3P1^ ixi^i! W, lit 'it TPlft ?t,

^ t twilit t

^ r-IHfdPidO faMPwtf 'tt fHW ^ft f ;—

I. ' flft fe4

3T3RR,

fen i

[Pact II—Sec, 3 (h)]

i fit 'tit. *i1wmh,

TRfRsTFfl,

fen *l<jHq^-686028 l
3. sfr 'Jin'jw.

Tf-308, 7TH OTfefe, 'U'lH'twfl' ’ ! ? T TT J Ti'lPm-36
ffe. fe. 809/6/2007-^ (W)]
Wen fw, fefefi (feFR)
New [3c I hi, the 12 tli March. 2008

S.O. 1009. --In cum miration of this Ministry's
Notification of even number dated 11 th July, 2007 and in
exercise of the powers conferred by subjection (J) of
Section5 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952),
read with rules 7 and 8 ofi.be Cinematograph (Certification)
Rules, 1983 the Central Government is pleased to appoint
the following persons as members of the
Thiruvanamhapurarn Advisory Panel of the Central Board
of Film Certification with immediate effect for a period of
two years or until further orders, whichever Is earlier:—

(1) Shri J iftitny George,

Perincheril Atijanam, Knllad PO,

Kottayam Dist., Kerala.

(2) Shri K.J. Joscmor,

Kalluvettukalpyal, Pertimbalkad P.O.,

Dist. KoUayam-68 60 28.

(3) Shri Pradccp Parapuram,

G-308, Shan Apartment, Panampalli
Nagjir, Kochi-36.

[FNo.S09/6/20Q7-F(Q]
SANGEETA SINGH, Director (Films)
12 ttt d, 2008

3ST.W. 1010.-^1 4tIIcW ^tI fef<£ 8-1-2007 ^
t a^trr 3 (tpph)

r-HHHctl, 1983 ^ fwi 7 sftc v urn ’ifer ^ifel
3lftrfepi f [952 (1952 37) H\ URI 5 ^3^VR) ( I ) SRI

TRrl ^iT y^ffrj ^ -Hi*It Cl^lCrf Tl'M ^

'VlT ^Fl t fciu, ^1T & J ict Siimn tlT, Vt uctn Tl,
'i'sl't fen M J -|l' , i'1 ^ chidfMqi tttue^iK^Tel^ a AW

t 5ft feratm I 70 ^tiw Tte, CT^ST-6 ^ fl^rl
wl tl

["90, i. 309/1/2006-1(9? (Tfl 1 )]
’H'lltTT fw, (n^w* (Ruch )
New Delhi, die 12th March, 2008

S.O. 1010.—In conlmuatian of this Ministry's
Notification of even number dated S-l -2007 and in exercise
of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5 of
the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952), read with

[TIP! H—«®53(H}]

]0, 2008/fora 20, 1930

2113

rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph ( Certification )
Rules,1983 the Central Government is pleased to appoint
Shri Vi kraut Do bey, 170 Benaras Road, Howrah-0 as a
member of the Kotkaia Advisory Panel oftbe Central Board
of Film Certification with immediate effect for a period of
two years or until further orders, whichever is earlier,

[F Ho. 809/1 /2006-F(C)J
SANGEETA SINGH, Director(Films)
ft*#, 12 2008

W.3T, 1011.-W r # ftifftt 31 2007 #

aftfnr It afFjsro 1 allt 'rafet (tpipb)
ft*RFI# p 1983 $ Pur 7 sfo 8 ^ TTOT
«f#PPT, 1952 {1952 37) # MRT 5 (I ) 5HI

8*8 !flftd«H TT W4K cPWct FWR 3 ^1

*ir anfoif

8S0*i rniaR fow ^ hawI

It f-iHMgw auRwHjf # wt % :

1. sit d). ulai J ifo4i8>

215-31, ^Ttil-fl,

MWI ftra, fofMIA-34 I

2. # ^t. W 7W,

^ 314-Xt, ifcW,

12 , 1

3. ?ft Tte

T^R3#T^T.T^T. fltftlNt, <nfc< ] 32,

[m * 809/1/2007-1^8 (#)].

#ttet ffe, (i^na. (fa*w)
New Delhi, tbe 12tb March, 2008

S.O. 1011,—In continuation of 1 this Ministry's
Notification of even number dated 31st May, 2007 and in
exercise of the powers conferred by subjection (1) of
Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952),
read with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph ( Certification)
Rules, 1983 the Central Government is pleased to appoint
the. following persons as members of the Hyderabad
Advisory Panel of the Central Board of Film Certification
with imm ediate effect for a period of two years or until
further orders, whichever is earlier.

0) Stan B. Site ftamsih,

Plot No. 215-A, MLAs Colony, Road No. 12,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-34.

(2) Shri B. Rama Rao,

Plot No. 314-A, MLAs Colony, Banjara Hills,
Road No. 12, Hyderabad-34.

(3) Shri Shaihlmthiyaz Ahmed,

SIRS Colony, Qr, No. 132, Vidhyadharapuratn,
Vijayawada-12,

[FNo.80WI/2007-F(QJ
SANGEETASINOH, Director (Films)
12^ 2008

1012,-^T TTTOH fiT 29-3-2007 ^
WQW* if 3jtT (WR)

fewprf, 1983 ^ fm

3rfVf^J952 (1952^37) (1) BR1

* iIVihT ^*T ^ UWTC GTOiqi M*liq 4 ^

^ , fer ^

IV'iltifferci ^hIVihJ tn«pci ^ i

]. sifrwK' jpnft. fliftair,

r 27, wtf ^{te, ni^kii

'1*R > I

2 gftTFT.STR dfc im ,

tf. 36, 4fem i 4) Tr«m
ifc t fegjOT-605 602 I ^

Tte, q^V-613 004 I

fm: H 809/2/2007-t^ C^)J
, wHm flST, (f^rn)
New Delhi, the J 2th March, 2004

S*0* 1012,—In HmtUuiation of lliis Ministry's
NotifkalioiioFeven numberdated 29*3-2007 and in exercise
ofthe powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5 of
the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1932), rad wftli rules
7 and 4 of the Cinematograph ( Certification) Rules, 1983
the Central Government is pleased to appoint the following
persons as members of the Chennai Advisory Panel of the
Central Board of Film Certification with immediate effect
for a period of two years oruntiJ further orders, whichever
is earlier.

(1) SmLS.^Gi^w

No + 27, Bajanai Xoil Street, Nadueangaral
Anna Nagar, ChermaMO

(2) Shri M.R, Veokalwan,

No. 36 ± Kaodaswamy Layout, I st Street,

K.K. Ro^ Villupuram-605 602,

2114

[Part 11—Sec, 3(ii)]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 10, 2008/VAJSAKHA 20, 1930

(3) Shri P.G. Rajendran,

B«60, Main Street, Municipal Colony,

Medical College Road, Tanjore-613 004.

[F.No. 809/2/2007-F(C}]
SANGEETASINGH, Director (Films)
^ 12 2008

WIT. 1013,-^ iftlcra ^ 8-1-2007 ^

3l|tH£4HI ^ 31pm 3 *Ttffa4 (W>H)
“Pl^l5?ft, 1983 ^ 7 3#R 8 ^ *PT lfe?T

1952 (1952 37) ^'m 5 ’Ft^’TORr (1) SRI

ITCH KlPkwY^T y4tn ^ ^¥j? +H4>K flfl+ltt R’TW ^ ^

w an^ sn^rrit Tfai, wl

FfW HH1«H <T>Wl*i|<ll tUTIIftHik

7f h^HnUan onfso^ ^1 c M | fl :

1. sft fo#ft TFTR trsrfr,

nitTl TIT, tp, 1RT

TTTFJ, IWTT I

2 . # M*I

TR, 41+TSHI-^fe W,

3. itdl'ilt TIPT,

13 4 l t^ q£i?r w, i

[’FT. TT. 809/1/2006-TPF<^)]

fw, (fa^r)

New Delhi, the 12th March, 2008

S-O. 1013, --In continuation of this Ministry's
Notification of oven number dated 1-2007 and in exercise
of the powers conferred by sub-section fl) of Section 5 of
(he Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952), read with rules
7 and 8 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 19S3
the Central Government is pleased lo appoint I he following
persons as members of the Kolkata Advisory Panel of the
Central Board of Film Certification with immediate effect
fora period of two years or until further orders, whichever
1 $ earlier:

(1) Shri Kishori Prasad Mahio p
Patel Nagar, At h PO&Dist
Lakhi^ami, Bihar.

(2) Shri Dinesh Kumar Patd,

NabiNagar, P.O. DaudNagar,

Dist. Aurangabad p Bihar

(3) Shri Jahangir Khati h

13 > Birchand Patd Path* Patna.

[F,No.S09/]/200d-F(Q]
SANG BETA STNGH, Direclor (Films)

^ Purtril', 12 wi, 2008

^T,3JT, 1014.-T^ Him? [%HI«b 6 3JTOT, 2007
Tf 3TftI^4T ^ 3 (WTT)

UmnJ\, 1983 ^ fTTO 7 '^ S ^ 7Tt*T ’ffelT 4 Ufa*
^crfVTWT, 1952 (1952^37)^^54^^1(05*1
titrT ifenr w trft w.^>k unfurl uNra

4ft srafi] ^ ’frrri srt^ sn^rnf trj, wfr 'ft f),

4*5^1 HHT'flT 4T^ 4i TltTTPilT "facl 4i tKt*ir 4»

F’T if (HHlMtiM srfenrf 4ft 4R?ft t :

I, # ’fW FlfeR,

9S/I, ’formft fts, vt
3*4f~70 I

164, T(tT 4t T*T upf,

^5^-70 t

3. 9^ tt#tt T^grc,

^ft-3, 102 Awh, -qfe,

3P^Tt (^) ^H7|-59 I

[’FT, 7T, 809/4/2007-T?F (Tit)]

3lftTTT^ rH^l* (ft^R)

New Delhi, the 12th March, 2008

S.O. 1014.—In continuation of this Ministry's
Notification of even number dated 6th August, 2007 and
in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) or
Section 5 nf the Cinemar^-raptl Act, 1952 (37 of 1952),.
read with rules 7 and 8 of the Cincmaioj^aph {Certificalion)
Rules, 1983 the Centra 1 is pleased to appoint

the following persons as= n-emljers of the Mumbai Advisory
Pane! of the Central Board of Film Certification with
immediate effcel Tor a period of iwo years or until further
orders, whichever is earlier.

(L) Shri Munaf Hakim L

98/1, Belgrami Road, Kurla West,

Mumbai-70.

(2) Shri Farminder Singh EIanspal T
164 ? LBS Marg, Kurla West,

Mumbai-70.

0) Shri Salim Mapklian,

B'3 f 102 Mapkhan Nsgar a Mar&f
Andhert (E), Mutnhai-59.

[F.No. 8CW4/2007-F(C)J
AMIIABH KUMAR, Director (Films)

imitMtf'tJft)] 10, awiABw2d, 1930

2115

19 md, 2008

. V W'fret3007
ftmrci#, im *,im 7 Ht m Hm mfo*

1952 msi m j ^I m-m ( 1)

. sjtnwi.KtlinNj ^nrota m& .$( mi wwt ***** ran ^
^ m aatN inWfiii*,^ 01,

FfW HHIfH 0(0 W*Wtfl/$W O

mw 0(** ^fOL 9$ffr«t$r wnqm,

0t*fc, finwr^iK m mdi $ i

(mot «»/&20W^(#)]

■i

; mftOT %hk, (ftw)

New Delhi, the 19thM*cfa,200l .

S.Q. 1015.—In continuation of tUl Mlniitiy'i
Notification of even number dated I tth July, 2007 and In*
exerdse of the powm cqanfetftd bjf MifcttCluni (I) of
Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952)
read nidi rule* 7 and 8 of die Cinematograph (Certifid-
tlon) Rules, 1903 the Central Government Is pleased to
appoint Prof, Thumpomoii Thomas, Pftkrtrtl Heights,
Kandmlun P.O., Thinivanthapuram as a member of the
Thiruvanthapuiam AdvboryPiGMlofdieCettttal Board of
Fi Era (Ccttifltttion with knmediute effect for u period oftwo
yaws or until further orders, whichever a earlier.

rlFmnMMiiqi
AMTTABH KUMAR,Direc»or (Film*)

19^200* .

wi iou.-iw *fcwm 2«n wfr

wnJmw edhu^ii ^ ejhi 4 sfe mftflt (iwtw)
ft e nwifl, )9B3 ^ 1h*R 7 * "if Tjwr mwmifht

mUrtVI, 1952 (1952 VI37) *tm i<lPl-pO)
BKI MVI (iMul *d Udl 4fc <U9*K 1HW ^

^l^ldl «wfh anri auWrWimtft^ ifr,
^ ^ ^
■^1^1 "5t gwai I "-dt, 2 WWfa*!K

ifte, ♦li’ifl, ^^(-600086 m (Hjffafi ertdl

jh-... •

iVL ^ 809/20007-^ (*fr]

, 1#X* (fw)

Newl^lhi f flieI9diM«c^,200B. '/.

$iQ, HU^*h ctMioiiitiMt ilf tUththiitty's
Notihcatkei«feye>tHtinbw <hited29di Msrdi,2007and in
exercise of the powers co nferred by sub-section (1) of

Scctioniof dMCBc mi tog gp haMt, 19S2(3Wri9fcJiewl
wi8|iute7tidl'iiftbeCiDtmtlop^

1983 the Central Government is pleased to appoint
< Dr.Sujatha Manoheraa.Flat No. l-fl, Claridges, 2,
Padmav&thiar Road, Jeypore Colony, Gopelapuraiu,
' MKlllBrvVDUvDvftllKDVMOliH UKDOU AGVBDiy nMl
of the Central Board pf.P ht^CotiSjMthNi with inane diate
effect for a period of two years dr until farther orders,
ttidefaeverttearite.. ■'''■ ■■ h

,7 '

AMTTABHXUMAR, piwetdr^iins)

t ’ J ■ .

f " :H *7f Weftn# mfC ;

.. ■- ■■■■ ■. '■■ .:■■■■■’■ 1 ■■■ : ■■' , ■■■■■■ ■"

mm i oi7.*-i*r eft ftmit; 2ho7

fthlll,. 1989".# ftiw 7 8 ^ flm ^fint ytrfjvi

mWPW, 1952 (1952"W37) eh RTO 5 m - 3'rani (1) RRT
• Rtpd itMNT m Ttehi e>Ttl tke?K jisiw

mf m awfh ^ ftm *i an^ an^tril mr, # j 1,

haw hui'iih ^

df eft TTTRj H-109/110, WFrth 'tfl,

ftnii-i 10033 m Pijf«r id# it

:-; 1^^809/7/2007-3^ (,#)]

' ^tSTR ^*nt r pP^Tffl (im<0

NetyDelhythe 19thMndi,200^

S.O, 1*17.—Ib uunthiUBtioii of this Mmfstry* s
Netificadeo of even mnnber dated ;13th S*pleffibw;20i07
■Ddmenawifhrpo^wfkM
of Seed oo Jef dwCtneranbographAct, 1952(37 of 1952)
reedvrithmles7»M8offeeCineinatogra|*(C<ftjfk^^
Rules, 19*3 die Ceraral Government is phased to appoint
MdvMTa-, A-109/110, ^an^ir Pui, Dclii-H0033 as
a member rfdwDeSu Board

ofFUm CwtiflcatiM with hhmedlaie effect for a period of
twaytaaormtilftfftfcsro^^

: , ;ip.>ip:^/2«7 r FicQ]

: .. mm, item m 6 ,msnva »7

m ailhH mt* aiywi^f afa mto* (w m w )

. r i UMUm fl, 19*3 * 7 ^t; 8"*'7W lN' : .^

1952 (1952 m : 3t j ^ 3TO ( 1)1^

: jit* nMr4fm *k*k aamh urn ^ ^.

^ ft,

4AM hlW SIHluia ^ «euewii 4iei ^ ^

t326 QWS—3

2U6

[Part II—Set. 3(ii)J

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY JO, 2008/VAISAKHA 20,1930

eft ftwraret sisra^z, 4 =3 titwuzl,
JUS, ^Jtr-395004 figtRT

^ |

[VI. ti. 809/4/2007-^ (ifT)]
TT^ftcTf faF, (tarn)

NewDelhi,the 24tli March, 2008

S O. 1018.—In continuation of this Ministry’s
Notification of even number dated 6th August, 2007 and in
exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (I) of
Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (3? of1952) read
with rules 7 and 8 of the Cimemaw^rapb (Certification) Rules,
1983 the Central Government is pleased to appoint
Shri Rajubhai Cbimanlal Brhnmbhatt, 4, New Pitshpakunj
Society, Near BadaGanesh, $umu( Daily Road, Surat-395004
as a member of the Mumhai Advisory Panel of the Centra]

. Board of Film Certification with immediate effect for a period
of two years or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

IK \u. t;rH)/4/2fXJ7-r(C)]
SANGFETA SINGH. Director (Films)

25 rH.

w.m utt SttHfr s 2007

tfl TTffffere: ^ 3T-J* 4' R (3IRFH)

fnwraeft, 1983 ^ fm 7 ^ s t&i

atPlpRR, 1952 (1952 W 37) ^ MRI 3 Ti? < L ]) ^TR
Tl^tf TiPia^V RtiPT ^ *OEi 4 k«.i-. ct^nvT 9RR vt
Rtif ^ jrtPj sfr fat? tn 3^yn wz, tit r.,
■ffjfa SiMi u H titf ^ cfiifT<Pi5iT TtffltrRm:

^ wr ti ^jtil Rffitt ^hm, ■^tte-i/TTl-y. ---M.iirWi RRti?
TJSftiu TJf&Z, ^TTT^RTt-700039 RTT fTptt vrtt) t I

[Rtf. U 809 R (til) ]

■Wto tfTeR)

New Delhi, the 25th March, 20iKS

S.O. 1019.—In continuation of this Ministry’s
Notification of even number dated 8 th January, 2007 and
in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (I) of
Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952)read
with rules 7 and 8 ofihe Cinematograph <Certific.il ion) Rules,
1983 the Central Government is pleased to appoint
Ms. Nargis Begum, Block-l/C-9, Kustia Government
Hous’ingEstate,Kolkata-700039 asamenibcroftheKolkata
Advisory Panel of the Central Board of Film Certification
with immediate effect for a period of two years or until
further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F_ Not 809/1/2006*1^0]
SANGEETA SINGH,Director (f ilms)

M fevft, 25 Rtf, 2008

^T.SRT. 1020. —^ * 1=11514 Rft Riii^* 11 20 Cj7

^arprqti afa (tour)
PmHUhrfl, 1983 ^ fRRR 7 8 ^ RfeiT R^nr

1952 0952 RJf 37) ^«RIS^^WRr(l)m
VW TTfeltif R*1 itfW ^ WWK flHilfl RR1R 'tt ^
RRf Rit SHtfV Fcn^. RT URT, 'Ril tit RF^l Fl,

RRm titf ^ fde*d4fl|i<H qeys r t ^ ^
mwi ^ r^tr RnTrifyd % *-

I. tifaitT iffl-ft tf^RlR^T

2 ^t, {sfatib ’RRierj tiWi^Rir

3. ^T. (titftTT) wf

4. stfjfttfRCT ti^T

5. sitfift ftTKnTR

6 . HMIINH TTtTAffl

7. TT, tRl

8 . fli tflR

9. #

19 4 sitf afRT^t

11 . st

12. til rs ■jtiH'f)

13. efh=t?rr 3# ^Fr

14. tit ^ tit^RR

is. tit stft
i& tit tt. tir.

17, 9T. RFt

[RTT. ti. 809/6/2007-i^F (tit)J

New Delhi, tlie 25th March, 200S

S.O. 1020." In continuation of this Ministry’s
Notification oTeven number dated 11th July, 2007 and in
exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (I) of
Scciiun 5 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) read
with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph (Certification)

[nmn—W3(H)I

sNf 10, 2008/ftrirer 20, i>»

2117

" . 1 - 1 - - ■ 1 . . ■■■

Rules, 1983 the Central Government is pleased to appoint
the following perscmsm members offtelHruvanthapuram
Advisory Panel of the Central.Bpard of pilm Ce rtifi ca ti on
with Immediate effect for a period of two yesirs or unci]

further orders, w M ch w eris earlier:

_ . \ .

I. Sint Natfifti V^ayaragfrun
Z Dr.(Sui<j)Jayasree Qopdotroar
3. Dr. (5mt) Abraham Meroy
4^ Stnt Vhn^aMeooQ
jU M.VandaMeDon
& SnitNapii^ianSaraswathi
7. Dr.PsdnaShaibi
8 ShriVljayakrishiun
9. ShriPennctlndayarnSmedbarain

Certification Apellate Tribunal for a period of three years
from the date of publication of this notification in die
Official Gazette or until farth er ord e rs, whichever is earlier.

[F.NoL*U*2007-PtQJ
SANGEETA SINGH, Director (Films}
9$fe5ft,3 3*Sef ( 20M

Wt«T. 1022,-Jri *fSl5riJ Oft ftdfe 11 ■gptf, 2007
9& atfM^9H|9? 4^P*T-^ afe (HHMH)

PKIHfltfl, 1983 * faTO 7 afo 8 ^
dtlV^-M, 1952 (1952’?! 37) 9ft 910 5 9ft 39XIRJ (l> BRT
•fil d^Vi vicl 5>( *fr'a flvwt flWnci d
Pfpt imt^t Ate 3 firatrnijw immirc £
# ailsRT elftra, nti wnntt tRtfr f i

1.9*1 91 809W2I»7-^F fail

10. ShriQeoige tWklmi;

11. Shri IC L: ; SrotfcrisJWaDas
12 Shri The Iddnkad Joseph
12 Smt Abr John

K StoriN.Srerifcumar

15. ShrfFetriy Jdse

16. A.V.Hiarnpiir ,.;■■'■= ■■'*:■

17. Prof. John Kurian

, |F24a<09«S(»?-Fiqa
SANGEETA SINGH, Director (films)
-flf ftRM >wfef,2O0*

wiiW.rV

1983 ^ frPT 4J afr 'Wf 9fta 4riPH atfaPPw, 19S2
(1952 *137) 9ft 9TO 5 N9ft**m (l)a% (3).5mw
flQMtjf 4H4ik, W*lO tMNX.tf W

JlPltUHI.^' ll99RR:9ft tllftfif 'tf.tfN- artfit l#
an 3Fi$ an^rif w; ^ *fr 9evl ¥l> finw wwe ^dlefln 1

aiflwaw ^ ^ it aiftn tfortf #

11

[9a ai 8ii/«2007-tpr(#)]

‘"; TPtonffl^lftkNr (fpw)

New Delhi, the 3rd April, 2008.

S.O. 1021.—Id exercise of the powers conferred by
wbet d pe i ^wdfD of Section 5 D of die Cinematograph
Act, 1952(37of t9S2).readwith rule 43 oftheCkieniatograpli
(Certification) Rides, 1983, die (iemrafGovernment hereby

appoints Shri Anil Thomas as a member of the Film

New Delhi, the 3rd April, 2008

. + ■

S.O, 1022.—In continuation of this Ministry’s
Notification of even number dated f 1th July, 2007 and In
exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (I) of
Section 5 oftheCinonafograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) read
with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rides,
1983 the Central Government >s pleased to accept the
resignation of Shri Anil Thomas as Member of the
Thiruvananthapuram Advisory Pend of the Central Board
ofFjlmCdtificUHnwifoimn^iateeffect. .

[F.Na809/6/20C7.7(C)]
SANGEETA SINGH, Director (Films)

^ftwft^25mjte ( 200B

^130. 1023-W ^ 9ft 11 ^clt?, 2007
9ft ^ CStm^X

iMnmral, 1983 ^ 7 sfo s 9f^

tffapw, 1952 (19529*137) 9ft m S (1) W9

R9R 9*r’a9Pt 9oft jj^’sSsTtwiTflwrci.awt^.^

99t arofa ^ ftni or apitf ^ *%

fsw TtTNM ’tfrrf ^ wmfmn 4**5t #

Wt ^ ^ # -q, 44^41^. ipt VHlfetfiKl ^ft

, 9W*14ilg, HS95 584 9ft ^39fl 9Ttcft $ I

[9a 91 809/672007-9^ (tf)J
TrftTH IfnF, (fP5*T)

New Delhi* the 25th April, 2O0B

SrO, 1&23 p—I n continuation of this Ministry
Notification of even number dated 1 Ufa July, 2007 and in
exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of

2118

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 10 , 200S/VAISAKHA 20, 1930 [Part El—S ec. 3 (ii)]

Section 5 of theCinematogruphAct, 1952 (37 of1952) read
with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules,
1983 the Central Government is pleased to appoint
Shri A. Jayaprakash, Guru Knpatn, Sonthiglri P.O.,
Podieiieode,Thifuvananihaipuraiiiv^95 584 as a member of
(he Thtruvananthapuram Advisory Panel of the Central
Bcrnd ofFilm Certification with immediate effect for a period
of two years or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

(FJfe.809*2007-F{Q]
SANGEETA SINGH, Director (Films)

fwra W»w*i ^

30 aqfcf, 2008

«t£lt, 1024.-W?T4T (Tfa ^ TURfa IP fN-lT ^

Rii(!i<i'l)^ratT p 1976 (*WTTfcWMcr, 1987) efron io^f
Tn-fttR (4) ^ ^ *U4i|< H,d46K!

e iraraPw IWtrmdN .l*t*n(etfWi5f a»wTtitif fan 4*
80 kUrri 3 «if*rcr’ wNrI^ ^sufphntis* hr
SRI tiH.ftwi h>I <nHj^fVra 4 t—

(i) ^ farpt %.J WT$ '80!^ 4l4lvH,

(nj wn?r fpw fti, *nwi faww <M4fd4,

’■nftriBiR

(TL i Iltil l/9/2006-ft^t OSPlNiR) ]

wu«i vid,

MINISTRY OF STEEL
New Delhi, the 30th April, .2008

S.O. 1024.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10
of the Official Language (Use for Official Purpose of the
Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended, 1987) the Central
Government hereby notifies the following Offices under
die administrative control of Ministry Of Steel, where more
than 80% staff have acquired working knowledge of
Hindi

(f) Ferro Scrap Njgam Ltd, Aaigaih Unit, Raigarh

<ji) Rashtriya Ispat Ni$un.LfcL Jlranch Sales Office^

: Gatiabad.

[No. E-J101 1^/2006-Hindi (Tmpfcmeittjukin)]
SANJAYMANGAL, Director

TOT TOW

fwfl, 30 200S

W ( 3R 1948 (1948

HI 61) 4?t *TKT 4 TTOT7I {3} ETC!

fan? ehl4 *4^ ^.IrlK tHHfwfisifl

L ^jj4;0 Ttf vf^pRiT ^ MRT

Fiiiiisiw wwi 4(3)(^) # TIW

5RT ^iPra

(qvim OTE-3, Tfh=lift ^TIT

1 f&TT, p 3TfVf-1^K tTRT

(^ih}^ 4(3){^) ^ ^

jrtjT TTffiTC, I

*terc wjn 'wt,

TOT-462 004

[*Fl 2JO]2/5W-^T]

ft?,

MINISTRY OF TEXTILES

New Delhi, the 30th April 20QJ

S,0, 1023L—lii exercise ofthe powers conferred by
subsection (3) of section 4 of the Central Silk Board Act,
l94g(LXiof 194ft), the Central Government hereby notifies
the nomination of the foJlowing persons to serve as
members of the Central Silk B<wd for a period of three
years from the date of this notification subject to the
provisions of the said Act r—

l Mk Sunita Chaturvedi, Nominated by the
Director of Sericulture, Central Government
Government of Uttar Pradesh under Section 4(3Xg)
LDA Commercial Comply of the Act.

VishaJ Khand-3, Gomtj Nagar,

Lucknow

Z Shri M.K. Singh, IAS Nominated by the

CommissionerfSilk), Central Government

Government of Madhya under Section 4(3)(g)
Padesh Lower Basement, of the Act.

SatpuraBhawan,

Btnpat462004

[F f No. 25012/36^5tftJ
BHUPENDRA SINGH, Jt Secy +

vnn 4qff-#vB* ■

01- WSw4ly 0» M«mw 334.145

<a ftasi 02 ^Rftwaiim 'tfnsiy 5*232

^*T '' _ " ..." ^ 7 389377 ..,

: ■ ■' : . _ frw <fo»*Pl)

*(H« ftalrf 4|;|44li

389 t 377 itea (*ni*r) iff 962,150 CTO*!)

2120

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 10, 2008/VA1SAKJ1A 2Q, 1930

[Part II— 5bc, 3(iiJJ

1, nmJlu HPT ( *TFT ) if 3 IRt<T ffcpf ^TFt VHliT

^TlWr:

ll 1 !),!,!, 4, 5, 6,7,8, 9, 10, II, 12, 13. 14, 15,
16,19 (nr), 21,22,23 24,25,26,2?( H), 28,29,30, 31,
32,33,34,35,36.37,38, 39.40,41,42, 43,44,45, 46,
47,48<Hr), 124, 130. 131. 132, t33. 134, 135, 136,137,
138,139,140,141,142,143,144, 145, 146.147,148, 149,
ISO, lit, 152, 153, 154. 155. 156, !57. 158, 159, 160.
16i, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171,
172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177. 178, P9, 180, 181, 182,
183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193,
194, 195, 196, 19", 198, 199, 200, 201,202, 203, 204,
205, 206, 207, 208, 209 , 210, 211, 212, 113, 214, II5,

116, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226,

227, 2i28, 229, 230. 231.232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237,

238, 239. 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248,

249,250,251, 252, 253,254,255.256,257,258,259,
260,261,261,263,264,265, 266,267,268,269, 270,271,
272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282,
283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288 , 289, 290, 291, 292 , 293,
294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299.. 300, 301 ,302 . 303, 304,
305. 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315,
316,317,318,319,320, 321,322,323,324.. 325,326,327,
328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334. 335, 336. 337, 338,
339,340, 341. 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349,
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355 , 356 . 357, 358, 359, 360,
361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371.
372. 373, 374. 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382,
383, 384. 385. 386(H), 387, 3H8, 389(H), 392(h),
393, 394, 395, 3%, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401, 402, 403,

' 404, 405,406, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411, 412/413, 414,
438(H), 439, 440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446. 447,
448, 449, 450, 451,452, 453, 454, 455. 456, 457, 458,
459, 460, 461, 462, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469,
470, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477. 478; 479, 480,
481,482.483,484, 485, 486, 487, 488 r 489,490, 491,
492, 493, 494, 495, 496, 497, 498, 499, 500, 501,502,
503, 504, 505, 506, 507 r 508, 509, 510, 511, 512, 513,
SM, 515, 316, 517, 518, 519, 520, 521, 522, 523, 524,
525, 526, 527, 528, 529, 530, 531,532 , 533 , 534, 535,
536, 537, 538, 539, 540, 541, 542, 543, 544, 545, 546,
547, 548, 549, 550, 551, 552, 553 , 554, 555, 556 , 557,
558, 559, 560, 561, 562, 563, 564, 565, 566, 567, 568,
569, 570, 571, 572, 573, 574, 575, 576, 577, 578, 579,
580, 581, 592(H), 593, 595, 596, 597, 598, 599, 600,
601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606, 607, 608, 609, 610, 611,

612, 613,614, 615, 616,617, 618 , 619 , 620,621,622,
623, 624 , 625. 626 , 627 , 628, 629, 630, 631, 632, 633,
634, 635, 636, 637, 638, 639, 640, 641,642, 643, 644,
645jf*46,647,648,649/150, 651,652,653,654,655,6S6,
657, 658. 659, 660, 661,662, 663, 664, 665 , 666 , 667.
668 , 669, 670, 671, 672, 673,674 , 675 , 676 , 677,678,
679/380,681,682,683,684,685, 686,687j688,6S9CH),
690(H), 691, 692, 693, 694 , 695, 696, 697, 698, 699,
700, 701, 702, 703(H), 704(H), 966 , 967 , 968 , 969,
970,971,972,973,974,975,976,977,978,979,980,981,
982, 983, 984 , 985, 986, 937, 988 , 989, 990, 991,992,
993 . 994 , 995, 996, 997. 998, 999, 1000, 1001, 1002,
1003, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1010, 10)1,
1012, 1013,1014, 1015(H), 1017(H), 11M, 1019,1020,
1021 , 1022, 1023, 1024, 1025, 1026, 1027, 1028, 1029,
1030,1031,1032,1033,1034, 1035, 1041(H), 1042(H),
1043(H), 1965, 1968, 1%9, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973,
1974, 1975, 1976. 1977, 1978, 1979, I960, 1981, 1982,
2019 , 2020(H), 2089 , 2090 , 2091, 2092 , 2093 , 2094,
2095 , 2096,2097,2098, 2099, 2100, 2101,2102, 2103,.
2104, 2105,2106,2107,2108, 2109, 2110, 2111, 2112,
2113,2114,2115,2116,2117, 2118,2119, 2120,2121,
2122,2123,2124, 2125, 2126,2127,2128,2129,2130,
2131,2132,2133,2134,2135, 2)36,2137,2138, 2139,
2140, 2141, 2142, 2146, 2147, 2148, 2149(H), 2150,
2151,2152,2153 ,2154, Z!55, 2156, 2157,2158, 2159,
2160, 2161,2162, 2163.2164, 2165,2166, 2167 2168,
2169, 2170, 2171,2172, 2173, 2174, 2175,2176, 2177,
2178, 2179, 2180,2181, 2182, 2183,2184,2185,2186,
2187, 2188, 2189, 2190, 2191, 2192, 2193. 2194,, 2195,
21%, 2197, 2198, 2199, 2000, 2201,2202 , 2203, 2204,
2205, 2206. 2207, 220S, 2209, 2210, 2211,2212, 2213,
2214, 2215, 2216, 2217, 2218, 2219, 2220, 2221,2222,
2223, 2224, 2225, 2226, 2227, 2228, 2229, 2230, 2231,
2232, 2234, 2235, 2237(H), 2238, 2239, 2240, 2241,
2242, 2243, 2244. 2245, 2246, 1247, 2248, 2249, 2250,
2251, 2252, 2253, 2254, 2255, 2256, 2257. 2258, 2259,
2260,2261,2262, 2263, 2264 1 2265, 2266,2267, 2268,
2269, 2270,2271,2272, 2273,2274,2275,2276,2277,
2278, 2279 , 2280, 2281,2282, 2283, 2284, 2285, 2286,
2287, 2288, 2289, 2290, 2291,2292, 2293, 2294, 2295,
2296,2297, 2298, 2299, 2300, 2301, 2302, 2303, 2304,
2305, 2306, 2307, 2308, 2309, 2310, 23II, 2312, 2313,
2314,2315,2316,2317,2318,2319, 2320, 2321,2322,
2323, 2324, 2325, 2326. 2327, 2328, 2329, 2330, 2331,
2332, 2333, 2334, 2335, 2336,,2337. 2338, 2339, 2340,
2341,2342,2343, 2344, 2345,2346, 2347,2348,2349,

[iTPUI—g*£3(u)]

2350, 2351, 2352,2353-2354, 2355.2356,2357,2358,
2359, 2360j, 2361, 2362, 2363,2364, 2J65, 2366, 2367,
2368,2369, 2370, 237), 2372,2373,2374, 2375,2376,
2377, 2378, 2379, 2380, 238). 2382,2383, 23«4, 2385,
3386, 2387, 2388, 2389, 2390,2391,2392,2393,2394,
2395, 2396, 2397,2398, 2399, 240Q, 2401, 2402, 2403,

2121

586, J87; 588,'589; 596; 591,592, 593; 594' 595, 596,
■ 597, 598, 599 * 680. 60*, 602. m , 604- 60S606, 607,
608,609; *1€ , 61 1 < 'll) v «$ j 668; 669,670,671,

, 672- 673 y 674, 675, 676, 67? ! , 678, 679, '680,68], 682,
683, 684, 685, <586, 687, 6«8, 6.^, 690,^,'31 *92. 693,
■_ 694, 695, 696, 697, *98, 609- 7MJ, 701, 702, 70i, ,

^ 10; 20QS/&TO 20, !930

2404, 2405.2406. 2407.2408>2409, 2410,24l(,2412,
2413. 2414.2415, 2416, 2417, 2418, 2419, 2420, 24?.l,
2422, 2423, 242^ 2425, 2426/2427, 2428, 2429, 2420,
2431,2432;2434.245s;2436,2437, 2438(m),2439(HO,
244ll( »lf), 2^43, 2444, 2445, 2446, 2447,, 2448, 2449,
2450,2451,2*52;3453,2454,2455,2456f*1Pr). 24otfVJ,
24ffi(*T>, 2463(’PT);2464, 2465,2406:2467,2468'HI),
2469, 2470, 247(<%), 2472(W), 2473, 2251,2474,
2194/2475, 21890476, 474/ 2477, 215/2478, 215/2479,
208^480, 471/2481, 243/2484, 2203/2485, 2203/2486,
2187/2487, 2195/2491/ 195/2492, 2195/2493, 242/2494,
22l8/$t9$(«S»f), 403/2502,4 J4/2$03(HT)- 4l6/2505( HI),
384/2506; 244/2507, 244/2506, 2186/2509,2186/2510,
2145/3511,2185/25I2;“?l 85/2513, 147/2522,2203/2531,
SOP,2532, *59/2333, 659/2524, 2444/2543, 2421/2546,
2405/2547.2399/2548,2399/2549,2399/2550,2399/2551,
2399/2552, 2399/2553, 704/2556, 136/2558. 180/2559.
3/2560. 2156/2584, 2133/2585, 2111/25*6, 2020/2587,
2020/25*5, 2104/2*93, 2089/2595. 5780598, 2412/599,
254/2604. 254/2605, 255/2606, 2443/26*5 , 2443/2666,
2190/2674,2190/J675,2454/2676,2454/2677,2390/2678,
2390/2679,997/2684,1007/268$, 2234/2687,2234/2688,
987/2697,.6J5/2704, 226$/27Q8-, 2267/2709, 2267/2710,
2206/2711. 2264/2712,185/2713, 185/2714, 1*5/2715,
214/2716, 216/2717,; 228/271, -239/2719 , 239/2720.
242/2721, 242/2722, 242/2723, 455/2724, 520/2725,
520/2726, 520/27#, 520/2728, .521/2729, 522/2730,
600/2731, 625/2732, 625/273.3, 653/2734, 6S4/2735,
986/2738, 19*3/2788,2189/2790,2195/2791-2227/2792,
2227/2793,2238/2794,22^2795,2242/2796,2264/2797,
2270/2798,2453/2799,2453/2*00,2453/28<ii ,2453/2802,
2454/2803, 2454/2804, 2454/280$, 991/2$06, 992/2*07,
2354/2808,23R2/2*09-2276P2*iO.

TfGW ■ ■

501, 502, 503. 504, 505, 506. 507, 508, 509-510,
511, 512, 519, 520, 521, 522, 523,524, *25, 526, 527,
52*. 529, 530, 531, 532, 533, 534, 556, 557, 558, 559.
560, 561. 562^563, 564, $65, 566- 567, 568, 569- 570,
571, 576- 577, 578, 579, 580, 581.582, 583, 584, 585,

705, 706, 707- 708, 709-, 710, 7U, 713, 713, 714, 715,
716, 717, 718 , 719- 720, ?2l, 722, 72U^i) t 727(*TT),
728, 729, 730 , 73? , 732, 75.3(10 j, 734 , 735 , 736- 737,

; ^3*- 739- 740, 741- 742 , 743 - 744, 745 - 746 , 747, 74S,

749,750, 75i,752j 75.1, 7^4 , 755 , 756, 757- 758 , 759,

760 , 761; 762,703 , 764 , 765 , 760, 7*7, 768- 769 - 770,

771V78K1*), 783(«fl/, 7X8, 790, 107*(HT)- 1078^),
10?9(*T), ift80-‘ I08i,'1082, 1083, 1084- 1085(41),
'"T0B6(V)/1«T,' 1088, T0K9-” 1090.' iWi, 1092, 1093,
1094, 1095-7096, lft/1.UOi, M02.
1103, 1104, <105, I UK. 1 Hv,' 1 ]30.' 1121, U22, E123,
1124, 1125(^11261 1427,: 1128i 1129,1132(111), 1133,

: . M.34 -. 1135 (*#) f J 41 (.W)., 1369-1370,1371.1372, 1373,
1374-1375- 1376-1377- 1378*1379,1380,1381, 1382-
1383- 1384-13*5,1386(111), 1387-43**, ]389. 1390,
1391.1392,1393,1394(111), 1395^96, 1400,

1401,1402,1403-. 1386/2150; 678/2214^6*2/22] 5,699/2216-
705/2217, 734/221*, 736/2219- 6*9/2220, 3*2/2227,
687/2235, 783/2241, 1100/2247, .1394/2262, 1394/2263,
i 394/22*4,1394/2265 i 1394^6, E394/22j&7( , i) -681/2275,

681/2276; 746/2304 , 577/2335 , 577/2336 , 577/2337,

583/2338, 583/2359, 585/2340; 672/2341, 693/2342,
751/2343, 7*2/2348(141)- 1388/24#- 1395/2408,
!444/2409(Hi)-693/2432^(13«^4Jl' " 7 ’

xto (TOiota t

fcfT ^ (J ?f^I-16^ XW. Hfif TO f^t

HR (MlMUl ^ liHir TT

IV 5 4T $ flij* Hf -,1 *41 oitihIip

tii*T ^ acfrt

^ 14*1 'jjn TO flieiwUf

TTWl - 389,386; 389- 392- 2503 - 2505 - 438 ^

-■ - ■■ ^ ^

t W i^qj 448 v to; nwHlo afa

.fifel mof ^ TE&jR|^3R|*lxf^ B T 3)k
^nfl 1 1 fa* HPT 1&5T Klli ofttm 2336, 577,

2335,576- 571, '564, 563- 519 ^1 ^ ^

$30, 512 Hfrtpfr ! |fii^TR Hft aft

$ Pin Hft idltSit-
510, S05 afe 5M HfrWlfrir«nri) *

2122

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA:MAY 10, 2008/VAISAKHA 20,1930

[Past II— Sec. 3(ii)]

t #i ^ft «nfe ft<6a up? flasr'ciBafro
504, 503, 502, 501, 534, 557, 556, 561, 568,
610 ft 'liSM ^ ftft nr «W 611 ft ;p«l

ft ftft feT^SHE aferil 611 atari ft TOI
jpuii ft far tos a+wri 666 ft ftft ■ 5 ?? ft
ftfc ft* felK aferi 722, 721, 720, 719 # T?f
Utm ft ^pRcft £ ato ta»T ’ t clR TOW 727,
726, 733 ^ ^ t 3Hl Fin W WIF

790,788, 2241 # ^ atari ft TOT ft ftla '

V1K ««m 2348 ft ^fiPT '♦>!'! TO ft feu
feiz aram 783,782,2348 ft tit fn nfflfft ft ftfc
%7 TO3 WSHI 739 ftt atari TO ft fan

mfH ata gnft ft ate sanftnftpft atai ft arm
ft mu atari a urn ip# I ata far m,
772 # nft4*H atari ft h# ft fen mft

jj?<!l ^ Ihh oiNt 4ta ^nl ^ ^nis
aranr ?68#Tjff atari ft an* ipat ft sta fa?
TOZ afafl 1076, 1078, 1079 ft ftft HIP# ft
lfa?TOZafTO 1105,#njff fttalTOnf^ft
Km mwi 1085,10B6 ft Tft H ft sfo
W TOUT! 105, 1119,1124 # ipft ataftftft
ataff ft H I M «$d l ft IfrlVIK am 1125 ft ftN*
ft fen nrfl n# ft ftl? T aiR afeat 1129,

1128 # Tpf atari ft aim ip# ft Ok far
Om 1132 ^ ihiT ^ 4^1 Pm 'flic titsui
1142 ftt iflil ^ fli'i <*<*<(] J Jii Fm ftel

wntei2i59 ata toi#?i toz airo 2216
■# tiimfaii atari ft aim upt fasi ata dMi«fWi
ftt olmfeti atari to nj# ft fenTOz Wwi
1141, 1135 ftft H *p# ft ft? fa? TOI#?f
'tflMI 2498 Tift h ®**ft TOlft ft aft* fa?
OW l ftlO *61 1 4 4104 1 2232,2667,2688,2235 #
*jft atari ft ifft H ft l^clRaRWI 2794#

njft atari nr *rn# ft fen miA ftsm 2237ftftft
H 'P# ft ft? TPT aifelft?! ata Fbisi ft!
arferfen atari ftt ma 4# fennfe 1 ^ nft
ft 4i fR flwn^lE ^TTO 1369,1370#Tjff
^ Tn*i J pifll ft aJk I*r ;t»l 1 pf ^chu ^
■?n®i jp# nf 2150 nft 4ofl nftm to ^

fen 2451 It iftft H *14# ft aftl '«b woti

i4o3 # nftft to n^nft ^ fen mz
TO4I 1386 ^ ^pt# ft Ott ftrei TO Ot W
*i«Hi i40i nft nfe^d^^f nftft nr t m
TORI fen TOSalTO 1402,1401 Tjff

iN^wiairtn#ft i

^ ^ n? : t*9T feST TO # "'cTR #5911401 Oi sfe v l- i pf
fTOit nr at ^ ft aftr fesr nft , '?ir
Om woo, i40i, nos#nftntfttira
nfe# aitar ^ ||'4# ft taTR afro 1398 ^
n1ftH T 5 n 3 ' ? fe qT 2267, 1394, 2409

7 ^'wtastir 1396# altar ^an<rftlftH T?1R

afro 2262 # nftHt atari T ta ft afta wi

flasi iffli arftaferr altai ^ra ^

fen #r# nTepIt-nfTtafl atari ^ ^pant ft ata
akii 4W Knit mVshi 2473 # 4lMi^arm

^i# ft afta hmnUi w arro 2472, 2471 r

2468, 2462, 2463, 2461, 2456 ft tfft H W
afen 2666 # atari n* arw ap# ft ata

feis arro 2440,2439,2438 ft fttaiT feR afro
2437 i^dl ft afta fea arror 2437,
2434,2432,2431,1965,1968,1969,1970,1972,
1973, 1977,2788,2019 # ftroft fttal ft W®f

ap# ft ata ffta ftro 2094 ft nfa#
fe# na amR afro 2020 ft ftft H
ifgft ft afta tfta avz arroi 2094, 2093 , 2092,
2595 ftt atari ft an*r ftft h artarr
2089 ft feR afeqi 2143 ta n^nft ft ata feR
2089,2142,2146,2147 ftTafegft fttarft aro
ft?f 2i49ftft4fti?irear0!rr 1369

"aa H^ncfl ft ata ^aiftl iTifl atari ft "jp# ft ata
ffta w Om 689,690 ft ftft h w Om
69i na ft fta w afro 691,692 #
ilrinnl atari ft ftft H afro 703,704 ft
apaftft ata ffta’WSaiTO 2556,654 ftt fttaft

atari ft anR ata wftro 592 ft fit h miz

are*n 593, 595, 582, 581,580, 579, 978, 966,
968, ioi4 # ftarol atari ft ftft h 1 ?nz
afro 1032, 1035 # fttatai atari ft ^pft h
1015, ion ft TP# ft sta ro>r few afen 1041,
1042 ftn#ftft stalftT’^IRafen 1043, 130,
131,132,133,134, 124, ]36#ftHftatanft
*1*1# ft aftr tart afen 48 ft h

afro 29 ia ft ftla mz Om 29,28 #

mUmMI atari ft ftft h "^i^ airo 27 ft ip# ft

ata tfta mz Om 21 ftt atari ft aim

wrr

atari ft ip# ^ ditofto to ata wn# atari
# ft 1

[nil a 430 L 5/2/2007-ftailWliwn-] J
nft-aifis^tar, araaatam

[Vf Ji—1<H 3(h)]

tiww io, 2 oor^*imji so, 1930

2m

ministry of coal
N ew Delhi, the 8th May, 2008

S.O, 1026.—Whettss by the notification of the
Government of India in die Ministry of Coal Dumber
S O. 1028 dated the 28th fune 2007 issued under sub¬
section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas
(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20of 1&9) and
published in tbe Gazette of India put; II, Sectton-3, sub*
section (ii) of the Gazette of Italia dated the 7* July2007,
the Central Government gave notice of its intention to
prospect for coal in 389.377 hectares (approximately) or
962.150 acres (approximately) of the lands in the locality
specified in the Schedule annexed to that notification;

And whereas foe Central Government is satisfied
thut coni is obtainable from die said lands;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by sub-seed on (1) of Section 7 pf the Coni Bearing Areas
(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957)
(hereinafter reserved to aa the said Act), the Central
Government hereby gives notice of Its intention to acquire
die land measuring 389.377 hectares (approximately) or
962.150 acres (approximately) and all rights in or over the
sold lands described in the Schedule appended hereto.

Notel. ThePlan bewingNo. MCDSUR/TLB/02/2008
dated 28th January 2008 of the area covered by this
notification nwy be inspected in the office of the Collector
Sambolpur (Orissa), otr In the office of the Coal Controller,
1, Council House Street, Kolhuta700001, or inttae office of
the Chief General ManageKCF&P), M»t™iwll Coalfields
Limited (Corporate Planning & lh^)ect Department), Jagriti
Viwr, PG. Jagriti Vihar, Burfa, Ssnibalpur, Orissa.

Note 2. Attention is hereby invited to the provisions
of Section 8 of the said Act, which provides os follows:

Objection to acqafiitiua

8 (1) Any person interested in any land in respect of
which a notification under Section 7 has been issued, may,
within thirty days of the issue of the notification, object to
foe acquisition of tbe whole or any part of foe land or any
rights in or over such land.

Eapknatton

(1) It shall not be an objection within the meaning of
this section for airy person to say foot he himself

. dealres to undertake mining operation in tbe land
for the production ofcoal andthnt such operations
should not be undertaken by the Central
Government or by any other person.

(2) Every objection under sub section (l) shill be
made to the competent authority in writing and
foe competent authority shall give the objector

an opportunity Of being heard either in person or
by a legal practitioner and shall, after hearing ail
such objections and after ™trmg such farther
inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, either make
a report in respect of the land which has been
notified under sub-section (|) of Section 7 or of
rights in or over such [and, or moke diff eren t
reports in respect of different panels of such land
or of rights in or over such land, to the Central
Gcraramas, coafomlng his recotmatiuMions ott
the objection*, together with foe record of the
proceedings held by him, foe decision of foot
Goverawre.

, (3) For the purposes of (his section, a person shall
be deemed to be interested in and who would be
entitled to claim an interest b compensation if the
land or any rights In or over such land were
ticqutred under foil Act

Note 3. Tbe Cool Controller, 1, Council House Street,
Kolkafo 700001 has been appointed by the Central
Government as the competent authority under Section 3 of
the said Act, vide notification number S.O.2015, dated foe
10th July 1995.

SCHEDULE

IB Block XIII(Talabirft-II)

T alabira Area, District Sambalpur, Orissa
Alt Rights

(Plans bearing No. MCl^SUR/TAi^02/200<
dated 28th January2008)

tii F Nutt 0 r

vat**

Futwtri

TaAiiH District Area Re*

Nc.ltfi#-

Number

balks/

PS*

in marts

Village

JL

Hen-

Nwnfrcr*

tire*

Of Taiibil*

03

Ren-

5until- 334.14*

t*IV

JW

VWwr-

02. Khinds

02

bof>

ShiM-p 5j r 232

Rengr

par

pH/

Kslir-

i

t"?

Total

H9J77

*As per revenue records.

Total 189.377 hectare* (approximately) or 962.150 acres
(approximately)

1 . Yfotpunbcre to be acquired InviJtageTatablra (Part)

1(F), 2,3,4,5,6,7^9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16, )9{Pk
2U2£3*Z4,25,26,2700.28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,
38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48(F), 124, J30.131,132,
133,134,135,136,137,138,139,14^141,142,143,144,145,

1326 GU0fl^4

2124

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA;MAY 10, 200S/VAI5AKHA 20,1930

I Part M—Sec,3(ii)]

14^ 147,148,149,150,151.152,153,154,155,156,157.158,
159,160,161,163,164,165,166,167.168.169,170,171,172,
173,174,175,176,177,178,179,180,181,182,183,184,185,
186,187,188,! 89,190,191,192,193,194,195,1%, 197,198,
199,200,201,202,203,204,205,206.207,208,209,2! 0,211,
212,113,214,215,216,217,218,219,220,221,222,223,224,
225,226,227,228,229,230,231,232,233,234,235,236,237,
238,239,240,241,242,243,244,245,246,247,248.249,250,
251,252,253,254,255,256,257,258,259,260,261,261,263,

' 264,265,266,267,268,269,270,271,272,273,274,275,276,
277,278,279,2SQ, 2ft], 282,283,284,285,286,287,288,289,
290,291,292,293,294,295,296,297,298,299.300,301,302,
303,304,305,306,307,308,309,310,311,312,313,314,315,
316,317,318,319,320,321,322,323,324,325,326,327,328,
329,330,331,332,333,334,3^5,336,337,238,339,340, 341,
342,343,344,345,346,347,348,349,350,351,352,353,354.
355,356,357,358,359,360,361,362,363,364,365,366,367,
368,369,370,371,372,373,374,375,376,377,378,379,380,
381,382,383,384,385,3S6(P),387,388,389(P>, 392(F), 393,
394,395,396,397,398,399,400,401,402,403,404,405,406,
407,408,409,410,411,412,413,414,438(P), 439,4 40,441,
442,443,444,445,446,447,448,449,450,451,452,453,454,
455,456,457,458,459,460,461,462,463,464,465,466,467,
468,469,470,471,472,473,474,475,476,477,478,479,480,
481,482.483,484,485,486,487.488,489,490,491,492,493.
494,495,496,497,498,499,500,501,502,503,504,505,506,
507,508,509, $ 10,511,512,513,514,515,516,517,518,519,
520,521,522,523,524,525,526,527,528,529,530,531.532,
533,534,535.536,537.538.539,540,541,542,543,544,545,
546^547,548,549,550,551,552,553,554,555,556.557,558,
559,560,561,562,563,564,565,566,567,568.569,570,571,
572.573,574,575,576,577,578,579,580,581,592(F), 593,
595,596,597,598.599,600,601,602,603,604,605,606,607,
608,609,610,611,612,613,614,615,616,617,61S,619,620,
621,622,623,624,625,626,627,628,629,630,631,632,633,
634,635,636.637.638,639,640,641,642,643.644,645,646,
647,648,649/550.651,652,653,654,655,656,657,658,659,
660^661,662,663,664,665,666.667,668,669,670,671,67Z
673,674,675,676.677,678,679,680,681,682,683,684,685,
686,687,688,689(P* 690(P), 691,692,693.694, 695.696,
697,698,699.700,701,702,703(F)- 704(P), 966,967,968,
969,970.971,972,973,974,975,976.977,978,979,980,981,
982^9*3.984,985,986,987, 988, 989, 990, 991,992.993,
994,995.996,997,998,999, 1000,1001,1002,1003, 1004,
1005,1006,1007,1008.1009,1010,1011,1012,1013,1014,
I0150 1 ), 1017(P), 10)8,1019,1020,1021,1022,1023,1024.
1025,1026,1027,1028,1029,1030,1031,1032,1033,1034,
1035.1041(F), 1 M2(PX 1043(F), 1965,1968,1969,1970,1971,
1972,1973,1974,1975,1976,1977,1978,1979,1980,1981,
1982.2019,202^X2089,2090,2091,2092,2093,2094,2095,
2096,2097,2098,2099,2100,2101,2102,2103,2104,2105.
210^2107,2108,2109, 2110.2111,2112,2113,2114,2115,
2116k 2(17,2118,2119, 2120,2121, 2122,2123,2124, 2125,
2126,2127,2128,2129,2130,2131,2132,2133,2134,2135,
2136^2137,2138, 2139,2140, 2141,2142,2146.2147.2148,

2149(P), 2150,2151,2152,2153,2154,2155,2156, 2157,
2158.2159,2160,2161,2162,2163,2164,2165.2166. 2167
2168.2169,2170,2171.2172,2! 73,2174, 2175,2176,2177,
2178,2179,2180,2181, 2182, 2183,2184,2185,2186,2187,
2188,2189,2190,2191,2192,2! 93,2194,2195,2196,2197,
2198.2199.2200,2201.2202,2203,2204,2205,2206,2207,
2208,2209,2210,2211,2212, 2213.2214,2215,2216,2217,
2218,2219,2220,2221,2222,2223,2224,2225,2226,2227.
2228,2229,2230,2231,2232,2234,22312237(F), 223 8,2239,
2240,2241,2242,2243.2244,2245,2246,2247,2248,2249,
2250,2251,2252,2253.2254,2255,2256.2257,2258,2259.
2260,2261,2262,2263,2264,2265,2266,2267,2268, 2269,
2270,2271,2272, 2273,2274,2275,2276,2277,2278,2279,
2280,2281,2282,2283.2284,2285,2286.2287.2288,2289,
2290,2291,2292, 2293,2294,2295,2296,2297,2298,2299,
2300,23 01,2302,2303,2304,2305,2306,2307,2308,2309.
2310,2311.2312,2313,2314,2315,2316,2317,2318,2319.
2320, 2321,2322,2323,2324,2325,2326,2327,2328,2329.
2330,2331,2332,2333,2334,2335,2336,2337,2338,2339.
2340,2341,2342,2343.2344, 2345,2346, 2347,2348,2349.
2350, 23 51, 2352,23 5 3,2354,2355,2356,2357,2358,2359,
2360,2361,2362,2363,2364,2365,2366,2367,2368,2369,
2370,2371,2372,2373,2374, 2375,2376,2377,2378,2379,
2380,2381,2382,2383.2384,2385, 2386,23S7, 2388, 2389.
2390,2391,2392.2393.2394,2395,2396,2397,2398,2399.
2400,2401,2402,2403,2404,2405.2406,2407,2408,2409.
2410,2411,2412,2413,2414,2415,2416.24)7,2418,24 IV,
2420.2421,2422,2423,2424,2425,2426,2427,2428,2429,
2430,2431,2432,2434,2435,2436,2437,243 S(P), 2439(P),
2440(P>, 2443,2444,2445.2446,2447, 2448,244 9,2450,
2451,2452,2453,2454,2455,2456(P). 246 l(P), 2462(P),
2463(P),2464.2465,2466,2467,246S<P) 1 2469,2470,247 f(F).
2472(F), 2473, 2251/2474, 1 194/2475,2189.2476,474/ 2477,
2! 5/2478,215/2479,208/2480.471/2481,243/2484,2203/2485,
2203/2486,2187/24*7,2195/2491,195/2492,2195/2493,242,
2494 2218/249SCP), 405/3502,414/2503(P), 4) 6/2505(P), 384/
2506, 244/2507,244/2508,2186/2509,2186/2510,31 *5/2511,
2185/2512,2185/2 513,147/2522,2203/2531,501 /2532,6 59/
2533,659/2534,2444/2543,2421Z2546,2405/2547,2399/254 8,
2399/2549,2399/2550, 2 1399/2551,2399/2552,23992551704/
2556, L 36/25 58,180/25 59.3/2560,2156/2584,21335585,2111/
2586,2020/2587,2020/25 S8,2104/2593,2089/2595,578/2598,
2412/2599.254/2604,254(2605,255/2606,2443/2665,2443/
2666,2190/2674, 2 190/2675,2454/2676,2454/2677,2390/
2678,2390/2679,997/26K4,1007/2685,2234/2687,2234/2688.
987/2697,655/2704,2265&70& 2267/2709,2267/2710,2266/
2711,2264/27 !2,185/2713,185/2713,185/2715,214/2716,
2162717,228/2718,239/2719,239/2720,2422721,2422722,
242/2723,455/2724,520/2725.520/2726,520/2727,520/2728,
521/2729,5222730,6002731,625/2732,625/2733,653/2734,
654/273 5,986/275 8,1983278 8,2189/2790,2195/2791,2227/
2792,2227/2793,2238/2794,223 8/2795,2242/2796,2264/
2797,2270/2798,2453/2799,2453/2800,2453/2801,2453/
2802) 2454/2S03,2454/2*04,2454/2805,991/2806,992/2807,
2354/2808,23822 SO 1 V & 22 762810.

[wit— w*?3<M)3

2125

10, 2008/^71^8 20, 1930

2- HotniBb(RUlBaa|iiind tavllh|e

501,502,503,504, $05,506,507,505,509,510,511,
512,519,320,521,522,523,524,525,526,527,528,529,530,
531,532,533,534,556,557,558;559,560,561,50,563,564,
565,566,567.568,569,570,571,576,577.57?, 579,500,581,
. 582,583,584,585,586,587,588,589,590,591,592,593,594,
595,596,597,598,599,600,601,602,603,604,605,606.607,
608,609,610,61 l(P), 666 (?\ 667,668,669,670,671,672,
673,674,675,676,677,678,679,680,681,682,683,684,685,
686,687,688,689.690,691,692,693,694,695,696.697,698,
699,700,701,702,703,704,705,706,707,703,709,710,711,
712,713,714,715,71$ 717,718,719,720,721,722,72o(P%
727(1% 72$729,73$731,732,733{P),734,735,73$737,73$
739,740,741,742,743,744.745,746,747,748,749,75$ 751,
752,753,754,755,756,757,758,759,76$ 761;762«76\ 76$
765,766,767,768,769,770,771 r 782(P) l 7*3(F%

I076tf% 1078(F), 1079(F), 1080,1081,1082,1083,1084,
1085(7% 1086(F), 1087,1088,1089,1090,1091,1092,1093,
1094,1095,109$ 1097,109$ 1099,1100, U01,1102,1103,
1104,1105,111$ 1119,1120,112 l f 1122,1123,1124,112m
112$ 1127,112$ 1129,1132(F), 1133,113$ 113W1141(F)
1369,137$ 1371,1372, 1373,1374,1375, 137$ 1377,1378,
1379,138$ 1381,138$ 1383,1384,1385,1386(1% 1387,1388,
1389,1390,1391,1392,1393,1394(P% 1395,139$ 13980%
140$ 1401,1402,1403,1366/2150,678/2214,682/2215,699/
221 $705/2217,734/221$736/2219,6892220,582/2227,687/
2235,783/2241,1100(2247,1394/2262.1394/2263,139*1/2264,
1394/2265,1394/226$ 1394S2S7(P)v68l/2275,6Sl/227$746/
2304,577/2335,577/233$ 577/2337, 583/2338,5833339,
585/2340,672/2341,69M342,751/2343,7*2034*0% 1388/
2407,1395/240$ 1444/2409(1%693/2432,oa 1370/2451—

Boundary Description of IB XIU flblabtra Blotk-D)

A-F: Line starts from beginning point “A " on die

common village boundary of village Talabira and
Patrapali as well as on the north western comer of
Talabira Plot No. 16 then moves towards north along
the common village boundary of Talabira and
Patrapali upto Point 'A r then turn east and passes
through Tglabira Plot Nos. 1,389, 38$ 389, 392,
2503,2505,43$ up to point‘T”,

P-G: Line passes towards south along the common
village boundary of Talabira and Khinda upto
Talabira Plot No. 448 and then turns east along the
northern boundary of village Khinda plot No. 233$
577,2335,576,57l, 564,563,519 and turns towards
north along the western boundary of plot No. 529,
53$ 512 then turns towards east and moves along
the aarthani boundaryplot No. 511,510,505 &
504 and meets point * ( C”.

G-H; Line moves from Point G on the south east comer
of village Khinda Plot no. 504/503,502,501,534,
557,55$ 561,56$ 610 and through plntrio. 611 and

then passes along the eastern boundary of plot no.
611 and passes through plot no. 666 and then
passes along foe eastern boundary of plot no. 722,
721,726,719 and then passes through plot no.
727,726.733, and then posses along the eastern
boundary of plot no. 790, 788, 2241 and then
through plot no.783,782,2348 to reach to southern
comer of plot no. 2348 and then turns right to reach
foe boundary of plot no. 739 and passes along its
eastern as well as southern boundary and then turns
left to pass along the western boundary of plot no.
773,772 and turns right and passes along the eastern
boundary of pint no. 768 and then through plot no.
1076,107$ 1079then moves through plot no. 1085,
1086 to reach the eastern boundary ofplot no. 1105
and moves along the eastern and south boundary
of-plot no-1105,1119, 1124 then moves left to
passes through plot no. 1125 and then passes along
the eastern boundary of plot no. 1129, 1128 and
then passes through plot no, 1132 and then moves
along the Northern boundary of plot no. 1142 and
then passes through Plot no. I Ml, 1135 to reach
the common village boundary of Khinda and
Talabira « well as foe ctmnnon boiatdary ofKhinida
Plot No. 21 $9 and Talabira Plot No. 2216 and then
moves through Tabblia Plot No. 2498 and then
through the Eastern boundary of Talabira Plot No.
2232,2687,2688,223$ and then passes through Plot
No. 2237 to reach the Eastern boundaty of Plot No.
2794 and moves South to cross the common
boundary of village Talabira and Khinda and then
passes along the eastern boundary of Khinda Plot
no, 1369,1370 and then passes through plot no.
2451 to reach the northern boundary of Plot No.
2150 to pass along its eastern boundary and then
move through plot no. 1386 to reach the north¬
eastern comer of Plot No. 1403 and then passes
along foe eastern boundary of Plot No. 1402,1401
to terminate at Point 'H' on foe south-eastern comer
of plot no. 1401 of village Khinda.

H-A: Line moves from point ‘H’ on the south-eastern
. 1 eotner of plot no. 1401 of village Khinda and then

passes along the southern as well as western
boundary of Khinda plot no. 1401, 1400,240* and
then passes through plot. no. 1398 and then along
the boundary of plot no. 1396 to pass through plot
no. 2267,1394, 2409 to reach foe southern boundary
of plot no.2262 and passes along its south and
western boundary to reach foe common boundary
of village Khinda and Talabira and then passes
along western boundary of Talabira plot no,2473
and pass through Talabira plot no. 2472,2471,246$
2462,2463,2461,2456 and (hen passes along the
western boundary of plot no. 2666 and then passes
through plot no. 2440, 2439, 2438 to reach plot

2126

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA; MAY 10, 20OB/VA (SAKHA 20,1930

[Pmt II—SEcJ(ii)]

no. 2437 and moves along the western boundary
ofplot no. 2437,2434,2432,2431,1963,1968,1969,
1970,1972,1973,1977,2788,2019 and then passes
through plot r>o, 2020 to reach south western comer
of plot no. 2094 and passes along the western
boundary of plot no. 2094,2093,2092,2595 through
plot no. 2089 to teach plot no2143 and passes along
the western boundary of plot no. 2089,2142,2146,
2 147 and passes through plot no, 2149 to reach the
boundary of plot no. 1369 and moves along its
northern boundary and then passes through plot
no. 689,690 to reach plot no.691 and passes along
the western boundary of plot no.691,692 and then
passes through plot no, 703, 704 and then along
the western boundary of plot no.2S56, 654 and
through plot no- 592 and passes along the western
boundary of plot no. 593,595,582,581,580,579,
978, 966, 968, 1014 and passes through plot no.

1015,1017 and passes along the western boundary
of plot no. 1032,1035 and then passes through plot
no. 1041,1042 and then passes along western
boundary of plot no. 1043,130,131,132,133,134,
124,136 and then pass through plot no. 48 to reach
plot no,29 and move along the western boundary
of plot no. 29,28 and then passes through plot no.27
then along the western boundary of plot no. 21 and
then passes through plot no. 19 and then along the
western boundary of plot no, 16 to touch the
common boundary of village Talabira amdPutrapali.

(F.No, 43M5/2C007-PRIW-J]
M. SHAHA BU DEEN, Under Secy.

eHT*ihwTr h<hA, tstit alhr w J^rPtwi foMitui wunw
(dwilwii niMfi fhwi)
mulUt wjtV

M telt, 24 -wfo, 2008

W.3TT. 1027.-'IR^ *tRT Pm, 1987 £

7 (1) # ^ 'Hltd'll

«jf| i^d^Ki -ajttir $ % ^ flo* wi

’tfTlhrT irpr

TTTrrt^r wh

TTTTltH W 7 !

to

(2)

(3)

(4)

Z 17-4-2003

1993
Wd 3

’TOTR TRfr^l t(fr Sfaqf stRiflfl TtFRT

9, wsijt Tllf *Hvt Tjpf, 10002, fft#^

tFRifenfi ^ feff, ^**rf w

wi 1 ?Rferrfi n'ltfkj

^UlSIrfl, T37T, '5^ W

ItffSFRtigw 3 f i

KMi#09^-57]
‘'fl'. ^a'si'T, TJ3TT wys (faycf

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND
PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consu mer Affairs)

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS

New Delhi, the 24th April, 2008

S.O. 1027.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule
(1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987,
the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that
amendment to the Indian Standards, particulars of which
are given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been
issued:

schedule

SI.

No. and Year of the

No, and year

Date from

No, Indian Standard*

of the Amend-

which the

menti

Amendment*
shall have
effect

(0

(2)

(3)

(4)

2

IS 709®(Part3),

03,September t

174-2008

1993 Specification
for Cross-linked

2007

Polythylene lsulated

Thermoplastic
Sheathed Cable*

Fart 3 For wort in£
voltages from 66 kv
up lo and including
220 kV,

Copy of this Amendment is available with the Bureau
of Endian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur SUah Zalar
Marg, New Delhi-110002 and Regional Offices; New Delhi,
Kolkala, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch
Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar,
Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur,
Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref.ET09/To7J

P. K. MUKHERJER, Sc F A Head (Electro-technical)

[unrii—v«3{U)]

FTC3 HI FFOT t 10, 2008/^ra 20, 1930

2127

f$ 1M, 30 arifer, 2008

KSi; 1028,—FU(f^ «[j& fPIF, 1987 7ft ftOT

7 ^ tf-Etot OW te) ^ *rm i¥ F i uflo hh*

"njRfrci eiEnjNii fhw $ fti ifrt ftn ^

^f ftmi 7pn/ftri F^ 1 ? :—

IFF

tftflftg FHlftF

WfAtH

ifwt TlOTSCUSf) ufl" dWI HOTJ 3^lrftftr

TtftFftftfa

F* alkaMn

+

(1)

( 2 )

(3)

(4)

1.

«fcfr 1417:1999-

V

wViltn Wtwi 2

1 Ff, 2008

fttw, 2007

fljp( 3B»|JPV

infapf-ftftlPS
(fdHT ■pflOTl)

-

IF tfvfim Fft uRnrf *w<H*i fhh f& afiraf Fraffa

MH^v «Jt), FRH FHT, 9, Fgl$< HIT 7F8T FPf, Ff l^,wft-
110002, &(N HPlfcnftFft Rwffll, *I«MiKII, ^~t^,

flwii vavii -hi<ifH<iV supkifpi, e ,j (e?ii, Ftara,
Fft*PF^t, ^fibi£, &iti"K HFp, HIH^, -im^<, FZFt, ipt

oti firenHiy*? ■flf ftuft ftrj hot ■Ji

10/3-1]

tf.' rflufti 'Kkfrir, ^$nfi<t> ipr tr ny» (FF 3 A)

New Delhi, the 30th April, 2008

S-Q. 10M^-In pursuance Of clause (b) of sub-rale ^
{l) of Rules (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards
Rules, 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies
that the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in
the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the
date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Si No. and Year of the
No, Indian Standard^)
Amendments

No. and year
of the Amend*
merits

Date from
which the
Amendments
shall have,
effect

(<) (2)

0)

(4)

1. IS 1417:1999 Gold

Amendment No^

1 May, 2008

and Gold Alloys,

December, 2007

Jewellery/Artefacts ■
Fineness and Mar¬
king Specification
(Third Revision)

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the
Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur
Shah Zfifar Marg, New Delhi* 110002 and Regional Offices,
New Delhi, Kollcata, Chandigarh. Chennai, Mumbai and
also Branch Offices, Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal,
Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur,
Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref, .MTD 10/T-l]

DR, (MRS.) SNEH BHATtA,
Scientist F and Head (Met. Engg,}

’R#ftOTffr,30 3 rSh,20O8

HT.OT. lOlC.-HKtfts Hl-H> (SWIFF 1*lf*FFF) 1988 *ft FFfFFF ( j) ^ VRfft^FIFH3lfF

nP*o F*W E ft* ^ Ri«u w l ’T ftt( FF ^ 7 ^ HT ftn FF ? :

»i eujtfa tfam tJl® H ih U ^ Ft Ft Tf HRU|

Tten

FiRAPf HI FR F Frit

W 4 S FKtfa F 1 FH HI hHh STOTT
FF HlHFi 4 t’(MI

ftf*

1 ■ 2

3

4 5

6

7 8

1 . 6308967

WTHR

^T?T ( 14543:04

f^rKn ^

19 - 12-07

Him i^f

Hi

HtH

1 6643779

>

4 ft Hlf 1 ?I 5 jtalt'HH

^tPUjsi

( 4 ^ 44 ^ 14543:04

HtyltWi (ui«1

FrlMl)

10 - 12-07

%F 3 ff ^

3 R^I

5 TJFIT

V

2128

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA; MAY 10, 2O0S/VA1SAKFLA 20,1930

tPARi II'—Sec. 3(ii)]

l

2

3

4

5

6

7 8

1

6664S8B

# Wi 'A
fitter

14543 JO*

13-12-07

►urn

3^TT

A

6671885

Evc<a|*4

I+n^n ^

14543 04

13-12-07

WW* f^l

rtf. tfT*Rtft/l3tl3]

nciqi^, TR (t$M)

New Delhi, the 30th April 2008

S,a 1029 —In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the Regulation 5 of the Bureau ofltidian Standards (Certification)
Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particulars, of which are given below
have been cancelledt'&uspended with effect from the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

SI. Licence No. Firm Name/City

No.

IS No.

i: 6308967

Godavari industries
Karnrmagar

IS 145432004

Z 6643779

Sri Sai Foods and

Beverages

Ku&haiguda

IS 145432004

3. 6664888

Sri Sai Products and
Beverages Nirmat

IS 145432004

4. 6671885

Vjjay Industries
Vijayawada

IS 145432004

product

Date of

Cancellation

Reason Remarks

packaged drinking
water (other than
packaged natural
mineral water)

19-12-2007

packaged drinking
water (other than
packaged natural
mineral water)

10-12-2007

As requested
by the firm

packaged drinking
water (olher than
packaged nauurat
mineral water)

13-12-2007

packaged drinking
water (other than
packaged natural
mineral water)

13-12-2007

Misuse

of

iSImark

[No.CMD/I3:I31]

A. K TALWAR, Dv ; Director Generali Marks)

—5TO3(iOJ

biot^i jpm :^C io, 2ooft^irar 20,1930

2129

1^,2008

W.OT, 1030*-’TOiNTITOT^ (H*PH) ftrpnw, 1988 ’tf'fore 4 ^ J'lPMH (5) ^ 'IHiflJt PFra iJ H[fr

^f^jpu Wl £ 14> ^ ^ ^ "fft ‘-Wj^d ^ fa? 1 T^ f :-

.

fe

4ii*Hk ^nn’Pnfe'

**17*4 ^51 *n*i

3R *RW

vm.i'mf

■finiPtwf

1. 12-3-2009

7819109

tf-87

Hirl'ifq, fa-u,

’HftBT422103

14543 j 2004

2. 18-3-2009

7827996

f&Z , ,

Tngw-^r,

4Wlh-425503

IlNii flHtm

ifo&Trvtt

T ftrcOT

13488 : 1992

1 30-3-2009

7832909

T^-20, ijftz 2 , wn^fhf
■(Rill,, '4tPli*l 425003

fifelWTC

’ITT 1 !

M151 < *7FT 1)

1999

[Tf. : 11]

H ^ fltWK, ^ ‘laih^iRi (TJR)

New Delhi, the 1st May, 2008

S,0,1D3(L—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the Regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)
Regulations 1938* the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the grant of licences particulars, of which given
below in the following schedule;

schedule

s.

No.

Lkertcc

No.

Validity

Dale

Name and Address (factory)
of the Party

Product

IS NoyPart/Sec, Ytear

t

1.

7019109

12-3-2009

Ocean Beverage* (Nasik) Pvt Ltd.,
B-87, MIDC, Mafegaon Nasik,
SumaH22L0i3

Packaged Drinking Water ISl4543;2£HH
father than Packaged

Natural Mineral Water)

Specification

1

7827996

L8-3-2009

Dalya Irrigation Co- industrial

Estate, Faizpur, TAL: YAWAE
Ialgapo-425503

Emitting pipes system

IS 134S8:1992

3.

7832989

30-3-2009

The Supreme Industries Limited,
H-20, Unit-II, MIDC Area,
Jalgaon-425003

Irrigation Equipmetit-
Sprinklera-Polyiethylne

ISM 151
(Part-1); 1999

[No.CMm3;U]

A, K. TALWARj Dy T Director General (Marks)

2130

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 10, 20O&VAI SAKHA 20, 1930

[Pah U— Sec 3<ii)]

ftSrft, 1 2008

1031,—'Ricfhl HH* (OTTVR) 1988 ^ f^fwi (5) ^ (6) Wfa

-SRfagfacr $ ’ft? ^ Tft ott| Ti^ wfte 3 fan TRJ t :-

Tfeft

wn

TflUil/OM

MlJ&imft ^>1 ’TR ^ W

^ wvfti

*R?fa wft; 'zr ifKn

T^WPlH Tit

fifa

1

2

3

4

5

I.

7744184

ftttlei‘1 ft-Hr+i 11 fa.,

* m, 9T-7f. 30/2,
tjnrft ^ fte

RRl 14543 : 2004

Ul^fd-4. ’RFReT Tltf ^ STcTml)

25-02-2008

n i^'Tii

f^T "yft

Z 7747190 tFfcWft ff-^FT fa5S, *0*1 1706 : 1985 25-02-2008

lfT-57, O^l-H ^R3(|$ft7ft ^ fSn?

TIFRr-431203

? tn?

[7*. :7ft*R^t/13 : 13]
U, it. crt^R, ** miFfal* <gp)

New Delhi, thp 1 st May, 2008

S.O. 1031.—Tn pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards
(Certification) Regulations (988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which
are given below have been cancelied/wjth effect from the date indicated against each.

SCHEDULE

SL

No.

Licence No h

Name and Address of the
Licensee

Article/Process with relevant
Indian Standards covered by
the Hcencee cancelled

Date of cancellation

(1)

<2>

(3)

<4>

(3)

1 .

77441S4

Pinakin Aqua Minerals Pvt Ltd.*
MilkatNo, 436, SrNtK 30/2
DhayariNarhe Road T

Taluk a Haveli, District Pune

IS 14543:2004

Packaged drinking water
(Other than packaged natural
mineral water)

23-2-2008

2.

7747190

Dhanlaxmi Re-Rolling Mills

D-57 t Addl MlDC n

Jaba-431205

IS 1786:1985

High strength deformed steel
bars and wires for concrete

reinforcement

25-2-2008

[No. :CMD/13:13]
A. K. T A L WAR, Dy, Director Genera! (Marks)

[qpm-^ro3(ii)]

10, 200*/4nra 20/1930

ftwil, 1 T^, 2008

man; iom.— mifN mm^ (wpr) faftm, 1988 44PRIH (3) ^ 4^m u i *f mstei tpi^pi

mi£4uT ^ flw»i aijsjjfl 4 m "tt ^ m m $ *-*

mk CTj^fw t=fifa tn^w'iid m MKifl^i mm m *n w mi 313ml ^

it 8 fwr mmTOi ?M+ nwi

'^'Rifr

ntaira

(I) (2)

I. 7817185 28-01-2008

7813076 28-01-2008

3. 7817286 30-01-2008

7818602 27-01-2008

7819088 11-02-2008

7818894 18-02-2008

7. 7821580 18-02-2008

& 7823180 21-02 2008

min mi

(4) _(fi)_ ■

,< il^N 7 it^5 wi $te ftKH'114't

768/769, ^PJwftRmiRt,

IjmR'te TJ? ^0*4

^-411002

teirni

(44>nm ni^fiw (m*wpi
XRH’k mr^ ararai)

wii , dn
ft?lt-^te-431122

^quf ate TRut fmwKjii,

H/'ft nw> B i, mfljwftiwmfl,

nRR 4a, ni^m nte fi«ni unfair

faW "jot

mfiNi njft sifti teimi <ni^Tfi ^ ftm
tf-]fl2,man$M iGM'qij'n

*n w mi ar^mi

mi

( Wl'H^ TT^fim PfH<Ml

^ 3TRFR1)

^5-431603

■tf-ift. h1o 9* mfrp wf ate ^f Prompt

381, *1 KIM 11 1 ^ 3H^vftpfW^ (

Tk ^S(irmq5*ra9

^1-411(00

mf min ^igs teimi

in (-4$*^ Trofim imran

’1t^» "dy mi ^ 3TRFRI)

P^KrU wigj-413515

mmWfrtft'PlftlST

38.1^1, T®? tiRki PwPw

nfe 4. ^t — 9 i^s m ot a

lt30,4w< 11,

qi^lJq M*1
twii 'Hicni-431203

nVm ■£!. Tmf ate 'ftrampi,

mFft 604/605,

woftra ter m usmi^

nvft Tin,

^1-411030

(6) (7) (8) (9)

152C Gl/08—5

pi #HR^7 13 : II]
n i. (id'w, si mfi^w (fjsO

2132

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 10 t 2008/VAlSAKHA 20, 1930

[Part II—Sec. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 1st May, 2008

SO. 1032,—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulation,
1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the
following Schedule:

SCHEDULE

SI. Licence Grant Name & Address Title of the Standard 1$ Part Section Year

No. No. Date of the Party No,

(1) (3} P) _<4)_ (5) _ (6) (7) (8) (9)

l, 7817185 28-1-2008 GopinathGold Gold and gold alloys, 1417 1999

.768/769, Budhwar Peth jewellery/artefacts—
Pune-411002 , Fineness and marking

2. 7813076 28-1-2008

3, 7817286 30-1-2008

4 7818692 27-1-2008

Devkate Agro industries
Gut No. 64
Rantnagar
J aka Road
District Beed-431122

WafgaookarLaxmi

Jewellers

A/P Chakan, Bazar Peth
Taluka Khed
District Pune.

Kartik Agro Cliem
Pvt. Ltd.

D-102, MIDC IndlArea,
Nanded-431603

Packaged drinking water
(Other than packaged
Natural mineral water)

Gold and gold alloys,
jewellery/artefacts—
Fineness and marking

UPVC pipes for pcnablc
water supplies

51 781908S 11-2-2008 K..B. Ghodke Saraf

381,Narayan Peth

LaxmiRoad,

PUne-411030

Gold aitd gold allowys,
jewel ler/artefatts—
Fineness and markings

14543

1471

4985

1417

2004

1999

2000

1999

6. 7818894 18-2-2008

Sai Ganesh Food
Industries
Gat No. Ill

Ruddha, Nanded Raod,
Amadpur

District Latur-413515

Packaged drinking water
(Other than packaged
Natural mineral water)

14543

3004

7. 7821580 18-2-2008 Bhagydaxmi Rolling Mil I High strength deformed 1786 1985

Pvt. Ltd.. sled bars and wires for

Plot No. G-9& concrete reinforcement

Gut No. 30, Phase II,

Addl. MIDC,

Daregaon Village,

District JaUtn4 1203

8. 7823180 21-2-2008 YogendraD. Gold and gold alloys 1417 1999

Ashtekar & Company jewellery/artifads—

604/605, Sadashiv Peth Fineness and marking

Kuntr Chowk,

Laxmi Road,

Pune-411030

(No.CMD/13:11]
A. K. TALWAR, Dy. Director General (Marks)

* T*

[TOU-^WTO3(ii)] _ TOmq!l:^lD, 30W%q 20, 1930 _ 2133

^ 1 Hi 2008

^l^T. 1033.—HW«*> ^ (H1IWI1) ftfHOH 1988^f^TO A ^-faTO (5) ^ 4IUfl*1 AIIHSH

arfkpgjTO W ftr Ito 9ll^4ilf faTOO ^pj^t ^ ’ftn TO f?, ^ TO ftjj TO ^

*3S*

trof loos rilfn tA upftr

tflWI ?MWTO1TOI

- —.

1 2 __3_|_ •

f 7830278 ^?Rf

28 "^91 TOT, TO ^ TOT,
Tiraft *^44 ^Tfri, WJHJK,
WTOW

% 7831583 "^T TOT,

TOT 84, Tfl *1$ ^ ^1,

<HlW

3lkM, dWHWK

3. 7829556 U'ftfll Tjfcs^tfTT,

2, H*l^q

181^4 TOl ^ Tft#, TOT qi£<4,
3ISTOWK

4 7829697 Up^ml,

39/460, 1| nT»TmTn€3 p
^TT’fe, 4Kl f l u l^l (

TOTOITO

5. 7829701 *to*I

4/8/18, ow ftfis 1 !,

T^TO Tfe, 3IITO

& 7829802 <JTO4

T^TOF tAw *TRT5,

TOTOfer'feft^W

7* 7830480 TO aft *(i*uil v4tflf,

4M|il* TO*! ^ TOT,

tmt, ^i^Kj «in^

8- 7830581 ^TOf TOTOI *^5nf,

TOrttfarn Trta, to ^
qcfcti-

4nts w TTC1 mi T^B

4

5

ift tAtT ^SVilH Tferf
*1$ 325 : 1996

■b.

27-3-2008

(ft ^TT is W4 Tfe?f
*1$ ^TT 325 :1996

28-3-2008

fe

TO^f tTOT 1*m ^§3# ^ arnjjmf/
fti69<wfl ^ ■gs-tfai

sitfTO 1417 11999

2^3-2008

Trot to" Trot I^st ^ an^jHf/

^EBT TO ^81/44

311$ 1417 ; 1999

26-3-2008

TO*f n?i Fri ft* Migaff ^ arrjjmf/
gam xpf gsrfaH
*I$TO1417-: 1999

26-3-2008

TTOt TO TO'if fa?T Tugrf ^ 3TPJT#
filW^I’fl ^<&ni TO {JlotH
an^TO 1417 : 1999

26-3-2008

wf to TO®f ft* qijpff ^ aflTjtHf/
ftltTOil<0 ^81 TO y<04<H
*i$TO 1417 ; 1999

26-3-2008

TO®f to ft* mgarff *» air^pnf/

ftlfrV4lO ^ITTO *J8*i4H

TO$TO 1417 : 1999

26-3-2008

2134 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 10, 200&/VAISAKHA 20,1930 [Part II—Sec.3[ii )l

1 2 3 4 5

9. 7830783 ^ ft* T W'JJO'ff/ 27-3-2008

^ 3, 'mf t*RH nSFT&Rl, TQBm T&

«K*ir1*1 [qyn'iH, 3T1^ 1^ 1417 ; 1999

(0. 7831078 g^ral ^ ^ fts trrg^ ^ 27-3-200B

^ TJJP 7, 3 Tft (frWl'+H, ftimift TJScIT ^NPI

T^STjfiro ^8H r '=ntel 541^1^1417:1999

jHjH^WR-382 330

11. 7827188

11 7820994

13. 7826590

14. 7831684

15. 783I9B7

16. 7831886

17- 7829091

18. 1826489

8flTR Mh<U,

305, rfalft ^P85t,

ti J -Hii +I*4&TO,

*IFPT ft?f ^ W&,

Rtey tMWT*; ts,

ift flSl'IW, tU ifJWl,

^ m v* 1 i'ci ■ Is ‘JJ33R

rt ipsn On.)
feftis, hW+ICII
41'H^cH, *g*!R ^l¥ r
y+ailHy+J 1( te 34in*4H ^ "WT4,
3i*UI$qi£l, 3T8^RR

717®PT ^T-nFC'l ‘+3*441

Jl , llvifl ipfe,

flHIViiR ^ wri,

sim^s, <neHWK

*W ^4Z=1 TSSgter,

18, Rt 541^^711,
qiuHSk TRj'bkL

4a3t ft^Tf Ts^hr.

21, 4R^=WSI t^fe,

*ft ^n?r fart ^ 4T0,

*+P4I^ ^ ^KO^ISl

Tfarf J ]d+!<1

15, ^ 2, # 541^ 0 \

Htlei r 31 £4^14HT

<£h<I* 7041 T^RTltH,

fnfai.5, VZ 39T7#t3,

(tilti qtffl ei5<4,

tn^i+Afem

anfT58T 1489 <M 1) :-WJ
Portland pgzzo [ana Cement
Part 1 Fly ash based

W 1592 : 2003

fr^fz OTTC 4lf9

341^1^8034 : 20<I2

StTfTJH 8034 : 2002
WTl^TtrnT^

tjtt 8034 : 2002
*HH[^Hd 1*4^

3TT^ t?FFT 8472 : 1988
H ^ 4 n<izi ^II ^FF, cH f5 tfT3T

8960 : 1978

f*W(!?d '^TrftPR -SfW4 4RTT

541$tJ*T 12709 ; 1994

THJ77

17-3-2008

14-3-2008

13-3-2008

28-3-2008

28-3-2008

28 - 3-2008

25-3-2008

I3-3-20W

'-7: T?CT

^ 10, zooa^fira 20,1930

2135

J 2

5

19. 7831785

2ft 7833062

2U 7824990

22. 7827390

23. 7826388

3-1R1 <WlP,¥M,

tfie 3,^61, 5HH5

1 <ls! 4180^141^

3 sWwfci ^wri,

3 TI,

1^,

ftnrPws ^

81804NK

aita+K fa ^pr,

sl«?i ^ '(1^, 8j

ui ft**nr tut,

31I$T*TM4220 : 1994

W4Hf¥l4<H TRlfe

14420 ; 1994
■Sfrn^T f-Mtli

'fcfui'TI

3^T*TT 14543 :2004

’ifc’ii m * ,

13-14 r ’qi^a^ J 3^1^ 14543 :2004

1s»^ Ihcw * 1^ ^ 81^,

^ WT^ ^|*|p
4»<L<J|H TJRl

535 1 :2003

2106, Tffa taflira Tte, ^rairT-^fMtfjS Ff Tl%fMf5H
(in t^l?i ^ TO,
f ifq ■ftftl'q

31-3-2008

31-3-2006

04-3-2006

17-3-2006

13-3-2008

[tf *ftHR*13 : 11]
1$. WTT, ^ *hi|f*^¥U. (TJ8T)

New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2008

t

S.O. 1033.—In pursuance of Sub- regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards
{Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of Licences particulars of
which are given in the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

SL Licence No,
No.

*__

Licensee Name

Product & FSNo.

Date of

GOL

1 2

3

4

5

1. 7X30278

Ampere Electricals

28, Patel Nagar "Near Margfia Farm.
B/H Shagtri Stadium, Bapunagar,
Ahmedabad

Three-phase induction motor

IS 325-19%

27-03-2008

2 7831583

Precision Tool Room

L/84, GlDC,Odhav Road,

Odhav, Ahmedabad

IS 325-19%

Three-phase induction motors;

28-03-200S

2136

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 10, 2008/VAJSAKHA 20,1930

[Part II— Sec. 3(h)]

1 2

3

4

5

3. 7839596

Sangita Gold Palace

2 Mahadev Complex B/H

Madhav Vgls Nava Vadaj,
Ahmedabad

IS 1417-1999

Gold and Go Id A1 loys,

Jewellery/Arte Tacts—Fineness and
Marking

24-03-2008

4 7829697

Shubhatn Jewellers*

39/460 Parasnagar Part 111,
SolaRoad Naranpura,

Ahmedabad

IS 1417-1999

Gold and Gold Alloys,

Jewel fary/Artefacts—Fineness and
Marking

IS 1417:1999

26-03-2008

i 7829701

Vijayabsmi Jewellers,

4/8/1S Thakkar Building,

Station Road Anand

IS 1417-1999

Gold and Gold Alloys,

Jewellery/Arte facts—Fineness and
Marking

26-03-2008

& 7829802

* V ninda van J ewe 1 Jers,

Main Bazar AT Sl Post Ttiarad,

Dist, Banaskantha

IS 1417-1999

Gold and Gold Alloys,

Jewellery/Arte Tads—Fineness and
Marking

26-03-2008

7. 7830480

Jayshree Krishna Jewellers,

Near Ashok Stambh,

Tower Bazar

Anand

1SHI7-1999

Gold and Gold Alloys,
Jewellery/Artefacts—Fineness and
Marking

26-03-2008

& 7830581

Mang! am Jewellers,

Karol iy a Pole M G Road,

Vadodara

IS 1417-1999

Gol d and G ol d A1 loys.

Jewellery/Artefacts—fineness and
Marking

26-03-2008

9. 7830783

Sas Baku Jewellery

G-3, BhaikakaComplex,

Nana Bazar, Vallabh VidyaNugHr*
Dist, Anand

IS 1417-1999

Gold and Gold Alloys*
Jewellery/Ancfacis- ■ Fineness and
Marking

27-03-2008

10. 7831078

Tulsl Jewellers,

G.F.-2, J PCotnplex Near Naroda
Police Station Naroda,
Aftmedabad-3823 3 0

IS 1417-1999

Gold and Gold Allays,

Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness and
Marking

27-03-2008

II. 7837188

Shrinun Cement Ltd.,

305 3rd. Floor, Samaan Complex*
Opp< Saiyam Mall Jodhpur,
Premchanduagar Road, Stellite
Ahmedabad

IS 14^9 Part l: 1991

Portland pozzolana cement

Part 1 Flyasii ba^cd

17-03-2008

IZ 7836994

Hindustan Asbestos Pipes,

PU Vadagam T A Dhamura

Cisi Sabarkantha

Gujarat

IS 1592-2003

Specification for asbestos
cement pressure pipes

14-03-2008

13. 7826590

La-Gajjar Madineries(P) Ltd.,

Ac id wa la Estate

Nagsrwel Hunuman Road,

Opp. Sukharampura Post Office,
Amaraiwadi Ahmedabad

IS 8034:2002

Submersible Pumpsels—Spec i tic at ion

13-03-2008

Cwrii—«p53(jj)]

io, 2008/^ira %\ t 1930

— 137

1 2

3

4

14. 7831684

Satyam Engineering Company,

31 Gopal Industrial Estate,

Opp. Vallabharvagar,

Odhav Road, Ahmedabad

13*034:2002

Submersible Pumpsets—
Specification

15* 7831987

Captain Industries

18 G1DC PalanpurTA Palatipur.

Dist. Banaskantha

IS 8034:2002

Submersible Pumpscis—
Specification

16. 7831886

Ritesh Industries,

21 Parshavanath Estate,

B/H CTM Mill Revabhai Estate Road.
Amaraiwadi

IS *472:199g

Pumps * Regenerative or clear, cold
. water—Specification

17. 7829091

Gujarat Pesticides,

F-15, Phased G1DC, Naroda.
Naroda, Ahmedabad

JS&taO: I97S

Spec i fication for Mel hy 1. Paraih ion
Dusting Powders

18. 7826489

Kemrock industries & Exports Ltd.,
At Village Asoj Vadodara Halo],

Ex* Highway Tahika Waghodia

JS 12709:1994

Specification for gl^s-fibre
reinforced plastic (GRP) Pipes joint*
and fittings for use for potabk waler
supply

19, 7831785

Uiuiati Industrial Corporation,

UniM D-61 Diamond Park

G1DC Estate,

Ahmedabad

IS 14220:1994

Openwell Submersible Pumpscts -
Specification

20. 7833082 -

JK Engineering Co„

3tA Mahashakti industrial Estate,
Opp. Yamuna Estate,

Behind sooiya Ceramics,

Ahmedabad

1314220:1994

Openwell SumNrstbk Pumpslcts—
Specification

21. 7824990

Omkar Beverages

B/H Sarvoday HotelHHNo. 8,
Kanknol TA Himamatnagar,

Dist. Sabafkantha

IS 14543:2004

Packaged Drinking Water

(other than Packaged Natural Miners]

Water)—Specification

22. 7827390

Nandini Beverages,

13-14, Parekh Wadi, Opp. Hindu
Milan Mandir.Opp. Kasanagar, Sumul,
Deity Road, Katargam, Surat.

IS 14543:2004

Packaged Drinking Water

(oilier than Packaged Natural Mineral

Water)—Specification

23. 7826388

Texel Industries Limited (Old),

Plot No. 2106, Santej-Kli&traj Road,
NR* Shah Steel, Vill*; Santcj

IS 15351:2003

Tefttil&Larninated High

Density Ployethylene (HDPE)

Fabric for Canal Lining—Specification

5

2W53-200S

284D-200&

28-03-2008

25-03-2008

13-0,3-200#

31-03-2008

31-03-2008

04-03-2008

17-03-200#

13-03-2008

■[No. CM D/13; 11J
A, K. TALWARj Dy. Director General (Marks)

2138

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA:MAY 10, 2008/VAtSAKHA 20. 1930

[Palcf 11—Siic. 3(iiJ]

sHr yi^ittah hwp3

M ftwft, 6 M, 2008

■gg.341. 1034.—HFH TFHFT ^ dlHtfed 4 T5 ^TTHTT^
'f' -3FHT TI34J ^ - , iki'*R MFH *f

M. l sui^i<| 3 i^g. Hi. 4. u^r. faW J T <rt
HT^H rT^T mU-41'jHI ^ TTItzpr 3 cTTFt k?tl6IHH Ah ^ nRq^-i
(ffrSHT) TciHtiS tJHT, TJ3> fqwi4 ‘flril

.stir iqng gil ^htt nil^riiii ^
ffcpj Tf$ ^iPRiniF wig ?Tt(T t far ^ 3, fswtf ~&sa
f^»iy ^kh ^ *«ift ■! sfa m* ariV^H-ii ft
wr tf g#cr ^tikT ^ afeR ^ft arfo farm

'HF/J

3FT; 3JH, HF1T WiK, afk oft^

(Hf*l 3 ^T#l ^ arfttHm HF 3T^T) 3Tftfa*TH, 1962 { 1962

ga so) gst hri 3 tcwti (i) grcr *ft hhfi

1^. ^ ’jfk ^ 4 hhh # srfMgnr htt st^h ■grn ^
aimg h?1 htw mrrft t;

^ ’B=rtg(T, jft "3gg ^ -gfSra 'jftr ^ famr^ t,

ofS hto 3 ^twwd)
^ 31#r HTCcT i£ TITO 3 *WT TFElftlcT JQ aqftnEj^TT HF

xfci h!; innl "=FF <h ^T ^[eft ^wUfi fci ^

4m, 4 tH w^#r fa^R ^ 4 fthh Hi, wi

uifwft, %i (tfi**)) Rifa^.fa. T£F1- 4,T?^, yi^<+i,
^,■^4. Sfl^trag TT5, TT5tl^-533 103 3^^^!
fofisw ht stfsIh hit w^'ii i

3*^1

i^rai

1

FT^H.

3TR3fl,^
dfFSlcr HT7H
^I^TF.

i

2

3

4

1W1

^-HtTVl-

31 a m

0.0971

310 HIT

0020?

295 HFT

0.2549

309 HR

0.0243

296 HR

0.1012

297 HFl

0.0931

428/1 HFT

0,0283

428/2 HIT

0.0283

12 3 4 5

427/1 HIT 0.2792
427/2 HFT 0,2549
427/3 HFT 0,2833

301 HP1 0,0931

302 Hm 0,0243

424 wt 0.0243

418HF1 01S2I

419 HTT 0.0607

421 HIT 0,238

351 HFT 0.0607

352/1 HFT 0.0931
352/2 HP! 0.0971
413 HP1 00324

353/1 HIT 0.0567
353:'2 HIT 0.0607
354/1 HFT 0,0526
3 54/2 HP1 0.0186

355 HTH 0.0243

356 HFT 0.1821

3 59 HFT 0.1093

358 HH 0,4047

331 HFT 0.2509

330 HFT (13116

329 HFT 0,1497

TfkT 4.0218

637 HFT 0.1497

6(0 HFT 0.0607

61! HFT 0,2509

609 HF1 0.3035

608 HFT 0.1093

607 HFT 0.0-186

604/2 HFT 11.5787
602 HFT 0.0971

600 HF1 0.0093

gW L.6078

|TT1. -H. TJFT- 14014/5/2T)08-^fl.TT. |
FFli, FTffTF

tfi^gk -!^=:

ti'| 4-,^<H iTFf^TvH

j kwP(

2139

, [TOU—TO3(ii)]

RR?T4il Wl* Jirt 10, 2008/fara 20, 1930

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND
NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 6th May, SlXtt

&Q. 1034,—Whereas tt appears to Government of
India that it is necessary in the public interest that
for Ibe transportation of Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG)
from IP Station Nal to HPCL Bouttng PhaLCitinmdModdi,
Rnjahmundiy, East Godavari district of Andhra Pradesh
State, a pipeline should be laid by, GAIL (India) Limited.:

And, whereas it appease to Government of India drat
for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary
to acquire the Right of User in the land under which die
said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described
in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of die power's conferred
by sub-section (l) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and
Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land)
Act 1962 (50 of1962) Government oflhdia hereby declares
its intention to acquire the right of user therein:

Any person interested in the land described in the
said Schedule may, within twenty one days fion the date
on which the copies of the notification issued under sub¬
section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the
Gazette of India are made available to die general public,
object in writing to the laying of the pipeline under the lend
to Competent Authority, GAIL (India) Limited, V8PL
Project, GAlLBhawan, AV. Apparao Road, Rajahimmdry-
533 103; Andhra Pradesl^

SCHEDULE

District

Tehsil

village

Survey

NO.

Area

lobe

acquired

torftOU

(In Hect¬
are)

i

2

3

4

5

East

Goka-

Gummalb-

311 Part

0.0971

Godavari

varan

doddi

310 Part

00002

295 Pan

02549

309 Pant

00243

296 Pan

0.1012

297Part

0.0931

428/1 Part 0.0283

42&/2Pait 00283

427/1 Part 02792

1

2

3

4

5

Bast

Godavari

Gtte-

v&raflf

Owumlh-

doddi

4276 Pat 02549
427/3 Rut 02*33

301 Part

0.0931

L

302 Part

00243

424 Part

0.0243

418 Part

0.1821

4l9Part

0.0607

421 Pat

0238

351PM

00607

352/1 PM 0.0931

3S2/2 Part 00971

413 Part

00324

353/1 Part 0DS67

353/2 Part 0.0607

354/1 PM 0.0526

354/2 Pat 0.0486

t

W

355 Part

00243

f

356 PM

01821

359 Part

01093

358 Part

04047

331 Part

02509

330 Part

03116

329 Part

01497

Total

4.0218

Gofcs*

varam

637 PM
610 PM

0J497

00607

611 Part

02509

609 PM

03035

608 PM

01093

607 Part

00486

604/2Part 057*7

602 PM

00971

600 PM

00093

Total

1.6078

[F. No. L- I4014/5/20WGP]
K.K.SHARMA, Under Secy.

1526Glfl)0^-6

2140

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 10, 2008/VAISAKHA 20,1930

{Part 11—Sec, 3(ii>]

feral, 6 Ilf, 2008

TOT. TO; 1035,—MTTfl ■dt'fck 3<fU Islfty

mfHWm ('jftl f iHfll'l ^ rT*I 1>H TO1 <*l>*f*l) iHWlS*),
1962 {1962 TO 50) ^ IFF 2 ^ WS (TO) ^

>«VI wnin'i Wanri'i ^ 3lfTOj1TO

TO TOITO 2327 IFtel 30^6-2005 URJ fft 'ft-ITO TO*tf,

wUe* 1fa?n shjto, *i®*i m^i 4 4««f *fa CsfasiO
fafeit, 5Rl,4lf l lMlf'( &«*} fan, TTO SfffnfTOR ^ 3 tMN
tow jnfaroft to ifft to< 4 ^ fan t^rgro Iron
WTO;

afo TORI # UlTO TOlf TO TOIHRITOI $ HI i sfK
4f| ijlSK Hi, on^> TO TO (ijni fan

Hit;

am; 3R, m TOTOT, TO! 3ff%rffa*ITO TOt TO1 2 ^
-tfz (TO) ^ aftr toto totor ^ Alfaro site

"fa H3IM1 1>l SlffajW TO TOITO. 2327
30-06-2005 ^TfVTOFTTO^ ^ r $ if ar^jVl ^ TOR

<1) ^flf^HTOfalTOt ITOrfawffaf (|fb«1l) ftlPnis SRI,
mfnvnf^ faart ^fan PiMfafiM ^3^ ^ ^ (2) ^
qftiiR ^3 ■*¥ "3to stfuffaiR atfhrnwjnfMTOif)

TOt hwi TO?4 ^ fa^n TOrf) f I

31^ft

WfPRT H ^TTR "Ptn

SlfilTOlfalT TO

to

(2)

^TEq H

ilRlfldd

(^frETO) faftfe^f

ih^t 3irw to ifa TOstm

l^Tl, I^TeTT - ^0^^

ftl : 457 661 (TOTOS^O

[TOl 1. ip. 14014/15/2005-^^]
it lx 7Ptf h *tfq<*
New Delhi, the 6th May, 2008
S.0.1035*—Whereas, in pursuance of clause (a) of
Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines
(Acquisition of Right of user in Land) Act p 1962 (50 of
1962), the Government of India vide Notification of
Government oflndia in the Ministry of Petroleum and
Natural Gas 5-0.2327 dated 30-06-2005 appointed Shri P.S.
Karma, Dy r Collector to perform the functions of the
Competent Authority under the said Act for laying of the
pipeline by M/s, Gail (India) Limited in Distt. Jhabua of
Madhya Pradesh State,

And, whereas, Shri P.S. Karma has been transferred
and Shri Sekhar Verma h Additional Collector has been
posted as his incumbent;

Now, therefore, in pursuance of clause (a) of Section
(2) of the said Act and in supersession of the notification
of the Government oflndia, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural
Gas vide SXL2327 dated 30D6-2005, the Government of
India hereby authorizes the person mentioned in column
(1) of the Schedule given below to perform the function of
the Competent Authority under the said Act for laying
pipelines by the said M/s_ Gail (India) Limited in the area
mentioned in column (2) of the said Schedule,

SCHEDULE

Name and Address of the person

Area of Jurisdiction

0)

P)

ShriSekhar Verma }

Additional Collector,

On honorarium basis to

M/s. GAFL (India) Limited,

GAIL Compressor Station,

Gaylor Kalan h Disttn Jhabua,
Pin*457 661 (Madhya Pradesh)

District Jhabufi of
Madhya Pradesh
State.

[F,No,H40]4/]5^5-G,P,l

K. K.

SHARMA, Under Secy.

* ^f^ft H 7^,20QS

^JT,OT. 1036—’13fT3T

Tji^n^r t^fir tj ■s4*j1 | i ^ iq apsfi) srftjfwL
1962 (l%2^F50) ^ tira 2 ^ TSTO 3 ^ 313^ ^"i ^
TT^Tl Wn r « ^

HTif^ F UWl irt, TRPtTPT Si ^ ‘R^TT

oft *lti^yl'I htH?1 ^

^TT - ^fi u -S[ HlSHdlsI ^ ftTR WT 5Hftl?r& ^
rn^H ifr %R TlrfV^rT ^rl f \

ptH. ^ 31^-31015/5/2000-^.WC-ll]

New Delhi, the 7th May, 2008

S.<X 1036*—Fn pursuance of clause (a) of Section 2
of the Petroleum and Mineral Pipelines (Acquisition of
Right of user in Land) Act h 1962 (50 of 1962X the Central
Government hereby authorizes Shri Rakesh Kumar Shamia,
Assistant Collector & Executive Magistrate, Nagaur
Government of Rajasthan to perform the functions of the
Competent Authority for the Mundra-Bathinda Pipeline
Project ofHPCL-Mmal Pipelines Limited, under the said
Act within the territory of State of Rajasthan,

[RNo, R-31015/5/2000-0 fL II]
ARUNODAY GOSWAMI, Under Secy

[girll—grettii)]

10. aogs/frra ao, law

2141

4$ ftwft, 6 M, 200B

*1 W. MJ7.—‘sfcjfo OTFR ^RFfar $ ^ ^WW JR&iT 3 ft

ditfwHi$ *135 iff ^ ^

3fa?T 4>Tn*Rv i H fai*£g SRT q«F Fi yi eri H fagTf ^rft ^nffo ;

3?fc crt«^k m^im FR 4Wi*'H firak ^ n4i'*ii ^ 1^ 3TRV*R* ’EJtft'iT ^ftTT
fft fr gk^Fi arf^nT^^wR t afa 41^1^

fatfin, ^ ^*r ywiR f, wfk £ aifa+u. afrahr ft*rr *m^;

mi m, afrr 13ft* (*jffcr A wn<r #

arflrcjrc m «rsk) arf«iFppi,i962 (1962 ^ft 50) ^ft urn 3 ^ twrt (1) wn jrw

VlP«l4T ^FT 5kk ,33rT £4 I* ^ 3ffk5ftR $1 3*jfo ^ ^ 3flP4% W

^lf Mfid, ^ 3RJ t, F3 cK^td ’Et f*TCRVi 3^T

sqfofop* ^ RTCT 3 Tfft WIRT (1) ^ 3ttfa MR7T ^ TH3FW A TO FI

ark^prr urnr-w ott ^ ^tt ti t, s^lu I^t ^

^ W<dU?H fa®A £ #1 3 4 3IF. 3TR. 'fl'^J, Wf*1 '-' factual, ?fFPT -lT4<?1

^MTiVM fafois, WfW fefosR, 719, 'JjTrT 4 th ^ J tH -i*R,1

<H l <M<k^- 560043 * > •&* ^ A A* ^HT I

l^icii : ’

H»ldR

il*H t*4 Mi

^rfaFiB-

sq-iao^^.

%5¥ZJ

i

-

OO

07

35

-H’JlsiflWl

82

-

00

06

91

^Firgir

lie

■ 10

■ oo

07

20

348

-

00

06

39

IhPI'JIhbI^h

36

A

00

00

10

34

-

00 ,

03

¥

62

e

00

€?

V

31

4

00

02

45’

^srelwi

102

■■ -^

-

00

29

__J9

[Tl 71. 3TR-250n/8/2007-3lt.ant-J]
t**l fewra f am Trf*rc

2141 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 10,200S/VAISAKHA 20,1930 [Past II— Sfc. 3(ii)l

New Delhi, the 6th May, 2008

s. 0^1(137,—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is
necessaryTn the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products
from Chennai in the State of Tamilnadu to Bangalore in the State of Karnataka, a
pipeline should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And whereas it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of
laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in lire land
under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid which is describe^! in the
Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (i) of
section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in
Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereto deck-res its
intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within
twenty-one days from the date on which the copies of this notification Jssued
under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act, as published in .tie Gazette of
India, are made available to the genera! public, object in v ntino to he scr jisition
of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline und-' tlv^ fa. d t" Shri R R
Janrtu, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Linv :d, ^rp: Enec. Dvision,
719, Ground Floor, 4 ,h Cross, 7 th Main, Kalyan Nagar, 1 st BSxk, Bangalore -
560043 (Karnataka)

SCHEDULE

Taluka : Mufbagal

Districts Kolar

State :

Karnataka

Name of the Village

Survey No.

Sub-Division No

Area

Hectare

Are

Sq. Mtr.

Chikkaguttahalii

1

*

00

07

85

Sangodahalli

82

*

00

06

91

Channapura

116

10

00

07

20

Urakuntemitturu

348

-

00

06

39

Minijenahaili

36

4

00

00

10

34

-

00

03

44

82

6

00

03

21

31

4

00

02

45

Yedahafli

102

-

00

29

79

[F. No. R-2501lffl/2007-Q.R.-l ]
S.K. CHITKARA. Under Secy

^FtD—TO3Cti>]

WTnWPni^lftJOOg/^TlBfaOi. I9»

* • fa#. 6 *lf, 2QO»

2143

m. m, ms &—wsxt ^ #<fi% X m #tt f fa

aflP^ci eki ^«fc hi^mcu^'t 'fli'il ■qilsH \

\

m*ftK ^ 'n^'f«rrr^*i ^ ^ ^ <niq^^) WTftcf

$ ‘ft? 3WT *jf*t 4,# P7 3T£H£W1 % <id ,J f 3l^ft 3 f sftr f?RT^ , 4l^<1IC'f

’(■IWi T^T Jiyfliq ^f «^"l*l ^ aifoqiji W 3^r fop«H |

3cr: sw, mam, afa ^srPror d immish (*jfa ^ ^fia ^

arf^R ?PT aiafa) 3tf%TpF=W,1&62 (1962 ^T 50) 3 ^ 3WTCT (1) m asm

Vl&wWt ^>T SPfpT ^ 3^7T *f 3*P?[Tf ^ 3>T 3?jfa ^ 3^ <!TT¥Pf

uftqun f;

^ *qfar, # 3^r -3^j# 3 X*f?r ^ 3 frcT^rg t, 3*r ?rrfca £ fatiXi
srfajwr vfo «nn 3 qft ^mr (1) ^ anfa to ^ wr? 3 w asifou ih

hIcihT wraivf ^TTflT dn<| (ft 3fi?fr fci ^ *ftcit 'Jjfo ^

^ ft»i^ ^ ^ eft aiR. 3 tr. wr ^riWrd, tf&rr cfl^Rfr

^hRVJH r^f4Js, «n$<ldl*J fefaiR, 719, ^ V&K, 4 th Hf/ *H , - XI

®ni^^i^<-560CW3 fcifisra ^ I

*

aqf*

1^1 dl : etiVlK

nfaanTTO j

^mt-

wz$..

.3*MsTi5

■n

uprc *

4TO ( fcfl

130

PI

00

54

11

^im^T

64

*

00

. 01

26

73

-

00

00

38

57

2

00

i

01

*

33 .

96

P7

00

33

34

a?^3pfl5TF?f?5l

10

-

00

01

M

17

-

ocr

09

58

,^!T^

21

IP

00

32

40

19

-

00

00

J9 ■•

[TO ?m-2501]/S/2007-3ftm-I]
TR, fqif^tRl, (rifa«(

2144 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA ; MAY 10.2008AAISAKHA2G, 1930 [Past II— Sec, 3<ii>]

New Delhi, the 6th May, 2008

&o. 1038.— whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is
necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products
from Chennai in the State of Tamilnadu to Bangalore in the State of Karnataka, a
pipeline should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And whereas it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of
laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land
under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid which is described in the
Schedule annexed to this notification;

F

Now, therefore : in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (i) of
section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in
Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its
intention to acquire the right of user therein;

i

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within
twenty-one days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued
under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of
India, are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition
of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline und^r the land to S-iirt R. R
Jannu, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limi.ed, Pipelines r vision,

719, Ground Floor, 4 th Cross, 7 m Main, Kalyan Nagar, ^ Block Banc lore -
560043. (Karnataka)

SCHEDULE

Taluka: Bangarpet

District: Kolar

Stats ■ Karnataka

' " 1

Name of the Village

Survey No.

Sub-Division NoJ

| Area _

^Hectare Are

Sq lultr.

Jaymangala

130

Pi

00

54

11

Kanganallur

64

-

00

01

28

KsmandahaHi

73

-

on

00

38

Mavahalli

57

2

00

■ 01

33

Siddanhalli

' 98

P7

00

33

84

Akshantragollahalli

10

-

00

01

44

Mugalabele

17

*

00

09

58

Sulakunte

21

IP

00

32

40

Neetakanthapura

19

*

00

00

_09

l

[F. NO. R-25011V8^2007O.R.-11
s.k chit KARA, Under Secy.

[«mn-TO3(Ujj

JO, 200&4flJS 20, [930

M 6 *1$, 2003

** 1099^^jhr TOR ^ bMhl ^ WITO9I Blffo ^ f ^
flipKT'ii-^ TT3*I *t ^ i *)'if<i e n TT3*T ^ •l , (^ 7ft> ^rfN*T SNtql ^ hR<*sH
3#lcT 'ihT'^VH J5T0 ^ VT^dfr-f jfpft ;

2145

aftr ^N ^HRfiTC ^ WT WEHTO ^ ^ ■371373^ Wrltcf ffell

t fa WT *jfR ^ TO 3Tf*^rn ^ RTPFT 3FJ7£fl $ I 3?R RWJ

(•liSm ^IJ ■! TI il'Kliq $, 3lft|C|iR ^ Sl'jJi Rh^l >^1^ J

m\ aw, rwtc, aftr w^nro % sq*iH #

•3Tftm>R ^| 3Tafo) 3lfafopT,1962 (1962 ^T 50) V1TT 3 ^ WTO (1) sTO UTOT
5RT JP?W ftWT gft 15q% $ STftWR TO 3P#T TO* W 31^ 3H*FT

^ H)N«J|| ch<d) |;

©nfon, 3TO ^ IPTOt t, TO ctiO«i i\' fcrcWi &<k\

3lfafWT *TO 3 ^ WTO (1) £ aitfa *TOT £ RTTO ^ W y^lfe 1 TO
?IWITO 3FR1T ^ ww TOT $ TOft t, TO^fT Ifr 3 ^ iji*r £
nl^ 'fi^wi^i Rit9('l “* 3TR. 3T1T. WTO VtTO'T iiNlH

fapT*S, WIP fetal, 719, 4 lh ,^ire.7 1h .^ ! * ,’fiTOW -HtJ

•*1 Ni, ^'1^1-560043 ^Rfe^T Iwffein WT * ^ -H^ff !

(«icni : <*Jtam

xpm whJu*

^SFT^T-

3^-73^ '4.

+

Ra°5^

faR

t?R

32

-

00

00

93

23

-

00

17

44

44i|H§Rrl

73

3

00

18

00

Riferor

170

3

00

)&

34

[M, 3. 3^-25011/8/2007-311^-1]
TRl (Wk),

2146

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 10,2008/VAIS AKHA2Q,1930

[Part II— SBC, 3(ii)l

New Delhi, the 6th May, ZOOS

s.0.1039. Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is
necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products
from Chennai in the State of Tamilnadu to Bangalore in the State of Karnataka, a
pipeline should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And whereas it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of
laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land
under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid which is described in the
Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (i) of
section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines {Acquisition of Right of User in
Land) Ad, 1962 {50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its
intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any pferson interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within
twenty-one days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued
under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of
India, are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition
of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri R.R
Jannu, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Pipelines '"-Vision,
719, Ground Floor, Cross, 7 xt] Main, Kalyan Nagar, J * 1 Block, Bant a lore -
f 560043. (Karnataka)

SCHEDULE

TaJuka: Malur

District: Kolar

State : Karnataka

Name of the Village

| Survey No.

Sub-Division No.

Area

j Hectare | Are Sq. Mtr.

Nidharmangala

32

-

00

00

93

Kadasannahalli

23

-

00

17

44

Vadagar.ahalli

73

3

00

18

00

Madivala

170

3

00

18

3*

[F. No R-25011/8/2GQ7-O.R.-I ]
S.K. CHIT KARA, Under Secy.

I«n*rn-TO3(ii)]

2147

^ lft 2D0B/^1WI 3ft 1930 _

2008

wm. tit riHftfl A 35 W'm* spftrr i
WPhrH I fr im 3 Aft ^ TT33 3 #T3£ ^ frjtifrffl 5^'^ HRatgH ti

*f«Hn «iTh?i 3*T4R.VW 6J<I ^ HI$4rU5H [•t^il ^TRt ;

3>^{ta tK«hR 3?f S3fT faiSI’) At ti ffa; 3TFR33J 'SltflTT S^RTt

t fo> 3aRi ^ 53 3rf^g?TT 3 A 3f®% t afa

ftvm, '*ii'l 3>T x«ii<* $, 533t T I 3* 3Tf33»TC 33 31^3 fii*n ^ly, * t

m: 3R r ti$* mm, 'H'lfcm tin wwi^ Cuft ^ ti

SflftPFTC 33 arafa) «fePm,1962 (1962 35T SO) tit 3TCT 3 3ft tTORT (1) OTT W3
Jf|plfl<i] 33 3ftf|?T 3Rft 4ft ^33 *ff*J 3 *sh«iI'i 3i 3ftftw>K 33 <h4h ti*t & 3f^3ft 5{RT3

3?lf ©sfon, 3ft 7R3 3i«jq^l 4 qpfti *rfft ft Rci«^ ft, 33 tiiOw A ^33H
«f ttm 3»t 3RT 3 4ft 3TOFT (1) £ 3Wt3 ti Tl^m ft 331 WTftH! W
3ffft^3T tit Jfffcff 3131^ *Rcfl tit TRT ft ft Pf«lft3 far ^ ^ ijft ft
AtA WW! ft Aft* if ti m. 3TTC, W% ^ V^ld, A&& ifl^T

fthifeR faflfts, feter, 7i9, qftrc, 4 th 3ar.7 m ftn ^3-

«<ril«f>,3 *kjv- 560043 ftt RiRsn if ft^i *w'ii 1

1^5TF: ^3^5 "5^

TT33

*lTet 33 -1H

^SfFT ^i-

— i

Wt-T&sA.

1

%*d<

3if4l<W

36

A

00

00

115

39

-

00

00

40

20

00

57

-si

[TO R am-2501 t/S/2007-^t3nt-l]

t^r f^m, aranif^

15^ Guoe—7

2148

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY J0,2ttWVAJSAKHA20,1930

[Past II—Sfic.

New Delhi, IheSih May, ,2008

s, a 1040—whereas, ft appears to the Central Government that it is
necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products
from Chennai in the State of Tamilnadu to Bangalore in the State of Karnataka, a
pipeline should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And whereas it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of
laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land
under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid which is described in the
Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (i) of
section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User In
Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962}, the Central Government hereby declares its
intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person Interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within
twenty-one days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued
under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of
India, are made available to the general public, object in writing to the act j is it ion
of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to F iri R.R
Jannu, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Lim: .-.d. Pipelines >. vision,
719, Ground Floor. 4 th Cross, 7 th Main, Kalyan Nagar, '.Block, Bangalore
560043. (Karnataka)

SCHEDULE

Taluka : Hoskote

District: Bangolare Rural

State :

Karnataka

Name of the Village

Survey No.

Sub-Division No.

j Area

Hectare

Are

Sq. Mtr,

Tindlu

36

A

00

00

25

Tara bh alii

39

-

00

00

40

Devraaoilahally

20

-

00

57

41

[R No. R-25011/8^007 aR.-l]
S.K, CHITKARA. Under Secy

rnnrll-w»s3<ii)]

WlilWT* 10, 200S^IIH 20 ]9J0

2149

^ tait, 8 ^ 200*

w, a* mi.—war ff ^rr igftH (^ft ^ gtrfw % astar ^i atfyfa),

1962(1962 m 50) (ta 553 <Efr 331I) # %tRT 3 *ft

(i) ^ 4t0 ^ qf "hkii WK $ #r y^[tw» q^isni ^ aifa^jFr trot 5ii.3ir.

3166 22

tmgm ftifeSs q$t aara^sr ff srtHiaff Sp. aq i foMKti f m

Ql^lcWi % % MfelSH % ^ ftolPRT ffTT SRHt^TR WW£4q{J lelfois 5TO MlfMIIH
Prai'k % xpitai i Ifl>{ i 'ttfco^K 5ST owii ^ oi^ ou^m ^ tj'iM^ir ^ (ft j

^ vJSTtl tM<« dlfcoOTl ^ nfci«H'^liai ^ tllflia 18'&P*fl 2008 qff siii*»i 3Tlft ^ 4Mm«| 557T

;

aflr WT5H5^ fasft % tpw ff tort qff-Hrrff ^ an&r qift $3n $;

#r qm yifa*ifl ff 553 sifatai 5& «mr 6 # gqtjRr (i j £ sr-fa »tr3 mm ^r aaqfft £

*S;

■t _

aftr HIRT TTC5&FT ff, 353 foff£ m ^317 % TOTT3 #7IH TRUTH ^ Sflff 353

qi54MI^4 fasiff % Sf'lfthtf viM^ tfy4l*l % 6lftHGtt 3>T 3nfa 557^ 5iT felJT % j

313! aw, ^TTTrT 3TOT, 353 3lfatar qft 3RT 6 ^ 3WTT (1) SRI WT staff 5>T ’RfH SRcT
5? E?RRT 5>Rfr$ fff> 5R ff W4 3Tjq^t ff ff q^HdlSH taff £ ftlR OT#! 3>

3iftl5>R 5>r 3Rfq Hteur HI3I ^ i

■&R t 'iHff R^SR 353 ^ifttai # wi 6 # 3 wrr ( 4 ) srt to staff m qpffq ®rff ^ r uz
i^fsii ^ t ff arfor «r -fiter w #th k tosh ^ ff ih mm ff ffffeci

?tff % gsmf, Tpff tarnfi ff 51a, 4frtf tow %r ff Pta

tal

215&

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 10,200R/VA]SAKHA 20. ] MO [Past d—S k, Xii>]

1 , -

ftrai % ywii

3 3CRI

N ^FT

^ [iRwii

■3CTT ^ ilflU W |

faqsrt

1

2

3

4

5

i)*ir4^di

132/2

0

05

35

1

0

oa

70

,

114

0

24

45

*f =TlS "JMpt^

firsn % ^TT

s 3TF^ T^T

1 J --irirf

20/2

0

oa

45

33/1

0

04

35

52/2

0

04

15

'

52/3

0

00

6 S

a2/2

0

03

20

62/3

0

oa

95

04/2

0

02

. 45

84/6

0

01

30

ae

0

00

50

108

0

00

10

in/1

0

00

10

162

0

oo

20

178

0

27

50

222/1

0

02

60

242/2cr

0

11

25

167/2

0

32

35

3) Hiritu-Hlfn

13

0

61

05

4)7rf^TMl

57/1

0

09

00

t

50/1

0

02

65

58/4

a

00

20

58/5

0

00

30

71/1

0

02

05

104

0

00

10

210/3

a

03

25

2 29/S

0

15

10

230/1

0

01

25

[*TnH—gng 3(ii)]_1930

L 1

_l a

1-1 -

]-4

~1-5-1

4) CftMT)

264/S

0

16

56

264/6

0

DO

95

TSvfe OflFlMSrt

J^f^tT I <p'"H

TPHT* 3fRI9%31

47/e*

0

00

90

321/4

n

06

25

324/3

0

03

20

3 24/6

0

or

95

325/3

0

07

10

2)tf5Rl

957/2

0 '

00

10

r

962

0

01

DO

977

0

43

25

3) q^BS’PtJin

92/3

0

39

00

131

0

04

35

183/4

0

01

00

feni ^™»r

TFJ^I I SIHf g^3i

1)*TK

427

0

01

00

2) fens

579/1*

0

01

40

563

0

00

25

466

0

01

75

443/2

0

02

60

478/1

0

00

. is

221/3S

0

00

25

347/2

0

27

00

5)

61/2

00

30

6> T ra^R3

e/4

0

45

os

7>jroroi

45/5 2

0

00

20

7B/1

0

04

05

95/1

0

01

05

98/&!

0

00

10

■ fJTji m V |

2 OS/2

00

10

, T^rE ^riWIg

1)^T +

153/2*

0

13

DO

149/2*

0

14

55

107/3

0

00

75

115)

2152 THE: GAZETTE OF IMU1A : MAY I0 ; 2(XWVAI3AKHA 20, ! O.tO IPaht II— Si:* . M'u'A

[im, R V&i- ]4ill4/17/2003nl.J
‘ TJ. TTTR, SfloR

New Delhi, the 8th May, 2000

S. O. 1(M1j—W n ercas by a notification of the Govern mem of India in Ministry of
Petroleum and Natural Gas, number S.O. 3166 dated 22 lui October 2007, issued under
sub-section (!) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of
Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act),
the Government of India declared its intention to acquire the Right of User in the land,
specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline
for transportation of natural gas from structures in Andhra Pradesh of M/s Reliance
Industries Limited, by M/s Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Limited to various
consumers i* fktr Cct*>tfYxj;

And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public
on or before lfc” 1 February, 2008;

And whereas no objections were received from the public to the laying of the pipeline;

And whereas the Competent Authority has under sub-section (I) of Section 6 of the said
Act, submitted report to the Government of India;

And whereas the Government of India, after considering the said report and on being
satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire the
Right of User therein;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the
said Act, the Government of India hereby declares that the Right of User in the land,
specified in the Schedule, appended to this notification, is hereby acquired for laying the
pipeline;

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the
said Act, the Government of India hereby directs that the Right of User in the said land
for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the Government of India, vest on the
date of publication of the declaration, in M/s Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure
Limited, free from all encumbrances.

[«CTJ[_CT33( |i)3

*IR!IafTaspaf ;^ 10.2008/^TW JO, 1430

2153

Schedule

Mandat : Bapulapatfu

District; Krishna

State : Andhra Pradeah

Vliagfl

Sump 14a. / 5ub*DTvlilBn Nd.

[ Area to t» acquired for ROU J

H octwt

An

CAr*

1

2

3

A

5

i)Medich«lB

132/2

0

05

35

1

0

03

70

114

0

24

45

Mandat: Nuzvld

0 (strict : Krishna

State i Andhra Pradeah

1} Vempadii

20/2

0

00

45

33/1

0

04

. 35

52/2

0

04 ■

15

52/3

0

00

65

0

03

20

02/3

0

03

95

04/2

0

02

45

64/8

■ 0

01

30

36

0

00

so

100

0

00

10

tll/1

0

00

10

162

0

00

20

1?*

0

Z7

50

222/1

0

02

60

ZJ Mors spud)

242/2A

0

If

25

137/2

a

32

35

31 Polnanapall

13

0

61

05

4) Ravfcfierafa

37/1

0

05

00-

56/1

0

02

65

50/4

0

00

20

5615

0

00

30

71/1

0

02

■ 05

104

0

00

10

210/3

0

03

25

2m

0

15

10

230/1

0

01

25

4} Havtaherala

264/5

0

15

55

264/0

0

00

95

Mandat : AglrlpaM

District: Krishna

State

: Andhra Pradesh

1) Valtigudipadu

47/ac

0

00

00

321/4

0

06

25

324/3

0

03

20

324/S

0

07

Ti5

325/3

0

07

10

2154

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 10,200S/VAISAKHA20, J 930 [Part It—S ee. 3(ii)J

i i— 7~r

2

T”T

: i

5 1

2)Edara

957J2

■1

00

10

962

■

01

OO

97T

25

3) BodcJanapgUi

023

0

39

00

131

0

04

35

183/4

0

01

00

Mandal: G.KondurJ

District: Krishna *

State: Andhra Pradesh

1 ) Kochiru

427

01

00

2) Vdlaturu

S79HB

0

01

40

583

0

oo

25

3] Kuntamukkala

458

0

01

75

443 (2

0

02

00

476T1

0

00

15

4) Chavuiuru

221/3A

0

00

23

347^2

0

27

00

5) G.Knndum

61/2

0

00

30

6) Gad damanuou

m

45

05

7) Murtagapadu

45/E2

0

00

20

70/1

0

04

06

95/1

0

01

05

0) Sunoarnpadu

y^5A

0

00

10

9] GanglneniDaleai

208/2

0

00

10

Manual; Vfeemiapadu

Districl : Krishna

State: Andhra Pradesh

1) Gudemmadharvarsm

153/2B

0

13

oo

149/2B

0

14

55

107/3

0

00

75

142/3

a

00

70

105/8

0

01

30

2 ) JayanLhi

535

0

00

45

Man dal: Penuganchlprpiu

District; Krishna

State: Andhra Pradesh

IJPenuganchiprolu

39 7/7 A

0

07

00

735VS

0

03

15

381/2

0

31

20

4 i mn

0

00

10

[F. No. L-14014/17/20G3-G.P.}
SNEH P MADAN, Under Secy

[tnun—

io, soos/^nrer 20 ,1930

21£5

ITT ifaltHi

^ifftreft, 15*^1,2008

w.aar. 1042.—ft* n siftPun, 1947 (1947
^sr 14) xrcr 17 ^ ^Bfht U<4 »k Tfe*R ^r

^ Trifcrcfa ^ t(«l* Pt4l'44>Tf afa *1<Tv <h4<li|{T ^ 4^5,
3r^? "4 PlRvi <rf|?||PH» "Pl^K 4 4 hO<I 4K4iH 4?|cilP(4>

aPwjTwpwT ■»rrai?ra J ^ toe {irq4 hwt 19/20W)
TftflfvUT $, ^ qi-sflu WWl U-4-2008 ^1 W^T

S«n uri f

[■4. T^H-12012/124/2005-a^ 3TTC(4| -II) ]

n*in,

MINISTRY OF LABOUR ANDEMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the l5thApril, 2008
$.0. 1042.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 19/2006) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-aim-Labour Court, Chennai
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Indian Bank and (heir workman,
received by the Central Government on 11-4-2008.

[No.L-120l2/l24/2005-IR(B-ID]

' RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI

Wednesday, the 9th January, 2008
Present ; K. J A YARAMAN, Presiding Officer
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No, 19/2006
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under
clause (d) of sub-section (1 > and sub-section 2(A) of Section
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947),
between the Management of Indian Bank and their
Workman)

BETWEEN

SriB.Durai : I Party/Petitioner

Vs.

1. The General Manager,

(IAEV Appellate Authority
Indian Bank, No, 66,

Rajaj i SaUi Chenrai-dOOOO1 : II Pafly/Management

2. The Aastt. General Manager,

Disciplinary Authority,

Indian Bank Vellore
Appearance:

For the Petitioner : M/S. Balan Haridas

For the Management : M/s. T-S. Gopalnn dt Co.

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide its
Order No. L-12012/124/2005 IR(B-ll) dated 24-2-2002
refereed the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal
for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

“Whetherthe action of the Management of Indian
Bank in imposing the punishment of Compulsory
Retirement for the alleged misconduct said to have been
committed by Sri B. Durai is legal and justified? If not, to
what relief the workman Sri B. Durai is entitled to"?

2. The allegation in the claim statement am briefly as
follows:

The petitioner who is an ex-serviceman joined the
services of the Respondent Bank on 18-04-1994 as Clerk-
cum-Cashier when he was working in Polur branch of the
Respondent Bank, he was issued with a show cause notice-
cum-suspension order dated 29-19-2001 for alleged
misconduct. Though, he has given an explanation, the
Respondent Bank has not satisfied and therefore a charge
memo was issued on 08* I-2902 by thq Respondent and
enquiry was ordered to be conducted against him. The
Enquiry Officer after enquiry has held that the charges
flamed against him are proved which is evident as a
perverse and contrary to record. The Disciplinary Authority
in his final order imposed the punishment of Compulsory
Retirement on 28-4-2003. The appeal preferred against that
order was also rejected by the Appellate Authority, The
allegation in the charge sheet was that the petitioner has
misappropriated Rs, 20,000/- being the amount remitted by
one Sri Rajakannu an 02-5-2002 for crediting his SB A/c
3914 wfih the Polur branch foom 02-5-2001 to 09-09-2001,
Though, the allegation levelled against him is not correct,
an enquiry was conducted and the customer Rajakannu
who alleged to have given Rs. 20,000/- has not been
examined in the enquiry. Though, or 02-05-2001, the
customer, Sri Rajakannu came to the bank and remitted
Rs. 20,000/- in his SB A/c. The petitioner received the cash
and kept the cash aside for crediting and issued a receipt
for payment to the customer and also made entry in the
Savings Bank ledger. Further, the customer after a ftw
minutes came back and requested to return the amount
owing to some immediate domestic need and under such
circumstance he returned Ra, 20,909/- back to the customer
and destroyed the voucher. Further, due to pressure of
work, he fhited to get back the counterfoil which he has
issued to the customer. On 184)5-2901, when the customer
qame to the bank to withdraw Rs, 5,800/- from his account,
the previous entry made in the ledger was scored out as
the same was by mistake and the balance in the account
was correctly arrived at Rs. 22?/-. However, by clear
afterthought, the customer has given a letter dated 27-09-
2001 to the bank that when be went to the batik after one
month for withdrawing Rs. 20,000/- he was informed by the
petitioner that Rs, 20,009/- has been spent by hiin and the
petitioner had assured to return the same next day or give
a promissory note for the same, The above belated
complaint clearly shows that it had been preferred only
wldi an Intention to cause trouble to the petitioner. The
inconsistent stand taken by the father of the customer,
Rajakannu dearly demonstrates that the incident as alleged
by him had never happened and the allegation had been
levelled with ulterior motive. No doubt, the petitioner had

IBM GIOB—8

2156

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA:MAY 10, 2008/VAISAKHA 20, J930

[Part H—SEC, 3 <ii>l

taken a hand loan of Rs. 20,000 from Sri Jayaraman, the
father of Rajakannu, the customer after executing a
promissory note. The petitioner owing to financial
constraint could not repay the amo,unt borrowed in time.
Under such circumstances, the said Rajakannu with the
aid of his Cither, Sri Jayaraman and one Annamalai exerted
pressure on petitioner towards repayment of loan availed
by him. In this backdrop, they had come to the branch and
complained to the Branch Manager and the petitioner
immediately made arrangements to make the payment of
Rs, 20,000 on 04-09-2001. With the repayment of the loan
amount, the matter had come to an end. Further, the amount
ofRs. 20,000 which was borrowed by the petitioner was
not die money of the bank or the customer, therefore, the
charge made against the petitioner was not proved in the
enquiry. The allegation of misappropriation will not lie
against the petitioner. Further, die transaction is a private
transaction between the petitioner and J. Rajakannu and it
cannot be subject matter of disciplinary proceedings.
Therefore, the findings given by the Enquiry Officer as
proved is a perverse one and contrary to the evidence on
record and the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary
Authority is illegal. Further, the Disciplinary Authority has
not considered the past records of the service of the
petitioner. The Appellate Authority in a most arbitrary
manner has confirmed this perverse finding. In any event,
the punishment imposed is grossly disproportionate to
the charges levelled against the petitioner and this Tribunal
has evety right to interfere with the quantum of punishment
under Section Il-A of the ID Act. The enquiry conducted
was in violation of principles of natural justice and fair
play. Hence, for all these reasons, the petitioner prays this
Tribunal to pass an award directed the Respondents to
reinstate him in service with full back wages, continuity of
service and other attendant benefits.

3. As against this, the Respondent in his counter
statement alleged the Respondent is a nationalized bank
and the petitioner was last employed in Polur branch of the
Respondent Bank. As a Clerk-cum-Cashier, the petitioner
has to discharge his duties with honesty, integrity and
diligence. While so, on 02-05-2001, when die petitioner
was working in cash department, one J. Rajakannu, a
customer maintaining SB A/cNo* 3914 had tendered to him
a cash of Rs. 20,000 with related remittance challan and the
SB Pass Book for crediting the amount in his account.
After receiving the cash, the petitioner affixed cash
received stamp on ihe pay-in slip, recorded the credit entry
for Rs. 20,000/- in the Pass Book of the customer for arriving
at the closing balance as Rs. 25,949/* and initialed the
balance column and delivered the Pass Book to the
customer. However, the petitioner had not accounted this
Rs. 20,000/- in the bank's books, rough cash register and
dosed the day’s lotal receipts. Thus, he retained the money
with him with the intention of misappropriating the same.
On 18-05-2001, Sri C. Jayaram, Asstt. Manager of the Bank
while checking the transaction of withdrawal of Rs. 5.S0Q/
from the account of the said customer, noticed ihe credit
entiy of Rs. 2O.O00/- as an extraneous entry, cancelled the
credit entry dated nil for Rs. 20,000/- and corrected the
closing balance as Rs. 227/- in the account. Subsequently,
when Sri Rajakannu and his father approached the cashier/

petitioner for withdrawal ofRs, 20,00)/-the petitioner took
them aside and told that he had spent the money and he
would return the next day or would execute a promissory
note in lieu of the amount. When the father of the customer
and one Sri K. Annamalai called at the branch on 05-09-
2001 and made a complaint to the Branch Manager, the
fraud committed by the petitioner came to light and
immediately the petitioner was called for and when he was
questioned, the petitioner accepted the cash receipt of
Rs. 20,000 on 02-05-2001 from the customer and making
false entries in the Pass Book of the customer as if the
amount was remitted into his account with the bank. Even
while the Branch Manager was discussing about the
incident with Sri P. Jayaraman Annamaki, the petitioner
left the branch and came back a little later relumed Rs.
20,000/-to Sri Jayaraman, the father of die customer. Thus,
the petitioner had misappropriated a sum of Rs. 20,000/-
being bank’s fund between 02-05-2001 and 04-09-2OD1.
Therefore, an enquiry was conducted against his
misconduct. The Enquiry Officer gave his report based on
documentary and oral evidences holding that the charges
against the petitioner were proved and the Disciplinary
Authority awarded the punishment of Compulsory
Retirement as provided by the bi-partite settlement and the
enquiry was conducted after adhering the principles of
natural justice and the punishment imposed on him is fully
valid in law and justified. Even the appeal preferred by the
petitioner was rightly rejected by the Appellate Authority.
The alleged delay on the part of the customer to prefer ihe
complaint in no way dilute the temporary defoultation of
the loan by the petitioner,'cashier. In the enquiry there was
no need to examine the account holder since the account
holder got the money, he would rot be interested to come
and give evidence. The entries made in the ledger folio and
Pass Book which are made intentionally by the petitioner
as if the bank had received the amount were unauthorized
as far as the Respondent Bank was concerned, It is
established between 02-05-2001 to 04-09^2001, the petitioner
by misutilising his position as a Cashier in the bank had
the benefit of Rs. 20,000/- tendered by the account holder
and to that effect there was temporary default at ion/
misappropriation of the amount which itself cast a doubt
on the integrity of the petitioner, it is not correct to say that
it was a private transaction. The petitioner as a Cashier in
the bank which Is a Pub I ic Financial Institution, by stating
that his past record was good, the petitioner cannot claim
any right to commit a fraud on ihe bank. Therefore, the
punishment of Compulsory Retirement cannot be said to
be harsh or excessive or disproportionate to the charge of
misappropriation. Hence, for all these reasons the
Respondent prays that the claim may be dismissed with
cost.

The points for determination are:

ft) Whether the act ion of the Management of Indian
Bank in imposing the punishment of Compulsory
Retirement for the alleged misconduct said to have
been committed by Sri B. Durai is legal and
justified?

(i i) To what relief the workman Sri B. Durai is entitled?

•TOcT'Wtww : 10, 2008/fanR 20, 1930

2157

PointNo.1

4. The charge against the petitioner viz. Sri Dtirai,
Clerk/Shroff of Polur Branch is Hint be misappropriated on
02-05-2001 cash amounting to Rs. 20,000 being amount
remitted by one Sri I Rajakannu, a customer for crediting
in SB A/c No. 3914 (hia account) with Polur Branch.
Subsequently, on 05-09-2001, the petitioner returned the
misappropriated amount ofRs. 20,000 toone Sri Jayaraman,
father of the Sri J. Rajakanmi in the presence of Sri
Murugesan, Branch Manager, Polur Branch and one Srj
Annamalai, a friend of SrJ Jayaraman. Hie petitioner has
not disputed the conduct of the enquiry before this
Tribunal He alleged the Enquiiy Officer has gi vena perverse
finding and the Disciplinary Authority on the perverse
finding of the Enquiry Officer has imposed the punishment
of compulsory retirement to him which is illegal. It is well
settled law that die findings of the Enquiry Officer must be
supported by legal evidence. It is further settled a wrong
finding is not necessary a perverse finding and a finding
cannot be described to be perverse merely because it is
possible to take a different view on the evidence, nor can a
finding be called perverse-because in certain matters the
fine of reasoning adopted by the Enquiry Officer is not
very cogent or logical. Therefore, only in a case where
findings or fact is based on no legal evidence and the
conclusion is one to which no reasonable man would come,
if would be a case of perversity and not of reappraisal of
evidence. Therefore, in this case if the petitioner wants to
get a re lief, he must establish that the findings given by the
Enquiry Officer is perverse and the imposition of
punishment on the perverse findings is illegal. The learned
counsel for the petitioner contended, it is alleged by the
Respondent Bank on 02-05-2001, the petitioner received
cash of Rs. 20,000 from J. Rajakannu, a customer of the
bank who bolds SB A/c No. 3914 in the Polur Branch and
he marked No. 20 us scroll number with (hepayinslipand
also affixed cash received stamp in the pay-irvslip given
by (be said J, Rjyakannu and credited the balance amount
in the Pass Book of Rajakanmi as Rs. 25,949/- and initialled
the said entries and delivered the counterfoil of the pay-in-
slip and also the Pass Book of Rajllkannu to him and the
batik father alleged against the petitioner that he has not
credited this amount nor credited the said amount in the
Bank’s rough cash book maintained by the bank and he
has thus misappropriated the amount. On the other hand,
the petitioner has given a cogent evidence that the
allegation levelled against him is not a correct one. No
doubt, on 02-05-2001, the customer Sri Rajakannu came to
the bank and remitted Rs. 20,000 in his SB A/c and no
doubt, the petitioner received the cash and kept the cash
aside for counting and simultaneously issued the receipt
to the customer and also made entry in the SB ledger. But
the customer, J. Rajakanmi after a few minutes came back
and requested the petitioner viz. the Cashier in return the
amount owing to some immed iate domestic need and the
petitioner in such circumstances returned the said amount
of Rs. 20,000 to the customer and destroyed the voucher
with him. Further, due to pressure of work, he failed to get
back the counterfoil which he had issued lo the customer

and this was the real story for (he incident. But the father
of the customer, Jayaraman who has giver an amount of
Rs. 20,000 to the petitioner, with a view to get back the
amount has cunningly play a role and falsely complained
against the petitioner that the amount of Rs. 20,000 was
misappropriated by the petitioner using the counterfoil
which his son has kept with him. This fact was established
by the contradictions in the statement given by Rajakannu,
the customer and also Sri Jayaraman, the father of the
complainant. In the letter dated 23-09-2001, it is mentioned
that Sri Jayaraman on 02-05-2001 had remitted Rs. 20.000
and after two months he wenralotigwith his son to the
bank lo withdraw the money and so on. On the other hand
Sri Rajakannu in hisJetter dated 27-09*2001 has mentioned
that an 02-05-2001 he went lo the bank to deposit Rs. 20,000
and so on. Therefore, the fad remains that it is only Sri
Rajakannu who had come to bank on 02-05-200 J and he did
not deposit the said amount of Rs, 24,000 as alleged by the
petitioner. Therefore, (he date mentioned in the complaint
Letter dated 23-09-2001 of Sri Jayaraman alleging the
incident dote is different from the date, which he has
mentioned in the domestic enquiry. Though, all these
instances do not demonstrate individually that the Diets
staled by the petitioner is a true one but the cumulative
effect of all the (acts stated by the petitioner clearly establish
that it is only Sri Jayaraman, the father of (he customer has
played a role against the petitioner in a belated complaint
and it also demonstrates that the incident as alleged by the
customer and his father, never happened and the complaint
was levelled against him with ulterior motive and the
complaint has been preferred by Sri Jayaraman, the father
of the customer as an afterthought and it was made only to
settle tiie personal transaction between the petitioner and
Sri Jayaraman.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner fort her
contended that five witnesses have been examined in the
domestic enquiry hut the customer, Rajakanmi who alleged
to hove been made the complaint did not come and depose
before the Enquiry Officer and therefore it is clear (hat he
had shied away from the enquiry and he is the person who
had taken back Rs. 24,400 on 02-05-2041. No doubt, (he
customer's father viz. Jayaraman though examined and given
evidence complaining against the petitioner, the
contradictions' and inconsistencies clearly establish that
he is the villain in the incident. As such he argued that the
charge framed against the petitioner has not been proved.
He further argued since the customer, Rajakannu failed to
come to the enquiry and subject himself )o cross-
examination, this has caused considerable prejudice to the
defence of the petitioner and no valid reason was given by
the Respondent authorities for non-examination of the said
Rajakannu.

6, Then again, the learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that the amount of Rs. 20,040 which the
petitioner has borrowed from Jayaraman, the father of (he
customer was not the money of the bank or the customer
and when the petitioner has repaid (be amount of Rs. 24,004,
it was not routed through the cash department of the bank

[P*rt II — Sec, 3(ii>3

2158 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 10, 2Q0SA/AI5AKHA 20, 1930

nor any receipt was* prepared. It was the amount lent by Sri
Jayaraman to ;he petitioner. Therefore, the private
transaction between the petitioner and Sri Jayaraman
cannot be a subject matter of disciplinary proceedings.
Therefore* the allegation of misappropriation will not lie
against the petitioner. Therefore, the findings rendered by
the Enquiry Office] as if the charge is proved is perverse
and contrary to lit? findings on record It is hjs further
argument, the very chat Rajakannu had failed to appear in
the enquiry will heily the charge. On the other hand, the
Enquiry Officer in a most perverse manner has mentioned
that it is for the petitioner to examine Sri Jayaraman as
defense witness to disprove the charge. This will dearly
demonstrated ihe biased attitude of the Enquiry Officer,
When the bank has levelled the charge against the
petitioner, it is only fer (ho bank to prove the same and the
petitioner has no duty to disprove the charge. Therefore,
the findings of die Enquiry Officer is perverse and contrary
to the evidence. Tlie Disciplinary' Authority based on the
one-sided findings of the Enquiry Officer has imposed the
major punishment of compulsory retirement and he also
not considered the clean past record of the services of the
petitioner before imposing the capital punishment. It is
further argument that the Appellate Authority also in a
most arbitrary manner has confirmed the punishment
imposed on the petitioner.

7, But as against this, the learned counsel for the
Respondent argued the Respondent Bank is a nationalized
bank and the pet itioner is a C lerk/ShrofT i s to discharge h is
duties with honesty, integrity and diligence. But, on
02-05-2001 when he was working as a Cashier, he has
misappropriated the amount deposited by a customer viz.
Sri J r Rajakannu. The petitioner has admitted the receipt of
Rs. 20,000 on the other hand he has given a statement that
Rajakannu, the ■customer has got back the amount for his
immediate need. But there is no valid proof or satisfactory
evidence to support this contention. Though, on that day,
the Savings Bank Counter Clerk was present and available,
the petitioner who as a Cashier has made/recorded a credit
entry dated nil for Rs, 20,000 pertaining to the SB A'c 3914
of the customer in [he SB ledger and arrived al closing
balance of Its. 26,027. These entries were made by his own
handwriting, he has not stated for what reason he has
made all these entries, when the Savings Bank Counter
Clerk was available for making all these entries. Thus; it is
clearly established that the petitioner has retained the
money with the intention of misappropriating the same.

8- Then he further argued that on 13-05-2001 when
the Asst. Manager of the branch while checking-the
transaction of withdrawal of Rs, 5,800 from the account of
the aaid customer noticed the credit entry of Rs 2(h000 as
an extraneous entry and Ihcrefore he cancelled the credit
entry dated nil for Rs. 20,000 made by the petitioner.
Subsequently, after two months* when Rajakannu and his
father approached the Cashier for withdrawal of R$. 20 n fl00,
the petitioner look him aside and told him tbai he had
spent the money and he would return the amount the nest
day or would execute a promissoty notice in Iteu of the
amount. This was stated by Jayaraman, (he father of

Rajakannu in his evidence. When the said Jayaraman and
his friend K. Annamalai tailed at the branch on 05-09-2001
and made a tumptairn to the Branch Manager, the fraud
came to light and immediately die petitioner left the branch
and came back a little later, returned the amount of
Rs. 20,000 lo Sri V. Jayaraman, father of the customer [f
really the petitioner had tv turned the amount a$ alleged
by him there is need for him to pay the said sum of
Rs. 20,000 to Sri P. Jayaraman. Thus, it is established that
the petitioner had misappropriated a sum of Rs, 20,000
being the bank's funds bemeen 02-05-2001 and 04-09-2001,
The Enquiry Officer based on the documentary and oral
evidences has el ear I > hold (hat the charges against the
petitioner were found proved, therefore, the punishment
imposed by I he L> i seip I in » ry Authority is for ati act of gross
misconduct proved in an enquiry held for the purpose a Her
adhering to the principles of natural justice and, the
punishment is fully valid in law and justified and the
petitioner h^snot made out a case warranting interference
in ihe 5&id punishment. Though, the petitioner alleged that
the complainant was not examined in this case but there is
no need to examine the account holder Rajakannu since
the petitioner has admitted the facts in this case and he has
given out a statement uhicli was not established before
the enquiry, further, the account holder had got back the
money and therefore he would not be interested to come
and give evidence. 'Further, the bank cannot ask the account
holder to cumc and gAc evidence in the interest of the
bank. Since [lie petitioner has admitted the fact that he has
received Rs. 20,000 ro tlie account of the customer on behalf
of the bank which he had nol been accounted for in the
cash book and therefore the entries in the Ledger Folio
without any dale and entries in the Pass Book which were
made by him intentionally as if tbe bank has received I he
amount were unauthorized as per Respondent Bank was
concerned. When ihe money was returned, no doubt, the
unauthorized entries were erased and the irregularities were
set right, the amount of misappropriation was established
by the bank, the petitioner by utilizing his position as a
Cashier had the benefit of Rs, 20,000 tendered by the
account holder and to that extent, there was temporary
default at ion/m isappropriat ion of the amount which Itself
cast a doubt cm the integrity ofihe petitioner. It cannot be
said that it was a private transaction, having made the
credit entry in the Pass Book-Savings Bank ledgers as if
the amount has been actai unted for in the books of the
bank and also signed the iedger folio of the chalbn for the
remittance oT Rs 20,GOG. li is; ntit open to ihp peliticncr to
say (hat it was a private trims action. Therefore! Ihe findings
of the Enquiry Office!- are supported by evidence and are
findings of the fact and ihe same cannot be assailed as
perverse. The petitioner who is a Cashier in Bank which is
a Public Finance Institution cannot contend that his past
record was goud and on ihoi ground he cannot claim any
right to commit a fraud on the bank. The charges levelled
against the petitioner are serious in nature and he being a
Cashier of rhe bank who is responsible for the amount
deposited by the customer, under such circumstances, the
punishment o[ L compu!sur\ retirement cannot be Slid lobe
harsh or excessive and the punishment is fully justified
and it cannot be questioned before this Tribunal.

ffPTH—'E*^3(ii)]

WHT : *1$ 10, 2008/4*Tfl3 20 p 1930

2159

9, But again the learned counsel for the petitioner
contended the material witness viz, the complainant
J> Rajakanng was not examined and h therefore, the non-
examination of material witness has caused considerable
prejudice to the petitioner, which amounts to violation of
principles of natural justice and he if Ned on the ruling
reported m 2007 W.LR< PAGE 7, B. PA DM A1 AH Vs +
UNION OF INDIA £ FIVE OTHERS wherein die Division
Bench of ihe Madras High Court lus held in the case
“the material witness R was not examined and non-
examination of the material whress R* who is the
complainant and non-supply of the copy of the report to

* the Dy\ Commandant which was very much rel ied on by
the Enquiry Officer amounts to variation of principles of
nah.mil justice and further held (ho us h normal Iy die Court
would not interfere with the finding of If«ci recorded in
the domestic enquiry, if die-finding of guilty isjwrvcrse.it
would be amenably to judicial ictuthu, if a decision is
arrived at orr the basis of no evident.? or evidence on
which no reliable or reasonable person would act, such
decision would be perverse. The failure to provide an

. opportunity to the petitioner to lost the veracity of the
complaint made against him has resulted In deprivation of
right of the petitioner amounting to gross violation of
principles of natural justice and the entire disciplinary
proceedings are hence vitiated:" The learned counsel relied
on the ruling reported in this case has argued that the
Enquiry Officer based on. the complaint has come to
conclusion in this case that the charge against the petitioner
was proved but the complainant was not examined in this
■case and the petitioner has no opportunity to test the
veracity of the complainant to give such a complaint against
him. Under such circumstances, as stated by the Hon’ble
High Court, it amounts to gross violation of principles of
natural justice dtid the enquiry proceedings are vitiated,

10, But against this, the learned counsel for the
Respondent contended no doubt the Enquiry Officer has
relied on the complaint made by the customer J r Rajakannu
but he has not based his finding only on the complaint, he
has come to the conclusion that the changes framed against
the petitioner was proved on all the facia mentioned in the
report, not only on the complaint but also oral evidences
and the documentary evidences which clearly establish all
the charge framed against Ihe petitioner has been proved.
No doubt, the complainant was not examined but on that
single issue alone it cannot be said that there-is no principles
of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer has given valid
reason for coming to die conclusion (hat the charges has
been proved against the petitioner. Under such
circumstances, it cannot be said that the enquiry i* vitiated.
Further, he argued the petitioner was employed as a Cashier
and he was expected to show utmost honesty, integrity in
dealing with the customer. The petitioner in this case
retained the amount deposited by a customer with him
with a criminal intent to misappropriate the same and thus
lowered the image of the Respondent Bank and acted in a
manner highly prejudicial to the interests of the bank. Thus,
he has given a story that the amount has been immediately
returned to the complainant. There is no proof or
satisfactory evidence to establish this fact* neither the
Enquiry Officer nor the Disc iplinary Authority can presume

or assume this fact with any satisfactory evidence, under
such circumstances, the story giyen by the petitioner is a
cock and bull story. On (he othe/ hand, the temporary
misappropriation made by the petitioner Has been
established with documentary proof Therefore it cannot
be said that the findings given by the Enquiry Officer b
perverse.

11.1 find much fbree in the contention of the learned
counsel for. the Respondent because though the petitioner
has shown some contradictions in the evidences given by
the customer's father but on that ground it cannot be said
that the story given by the petitioner is a true uue. The
petitioner has not given any satisfactory evidence for what
purpose b? has made the entries In the ledger and also in
the Pass Book white it is not his duly to record the same in
the ledger Further, even while he has credited the payment
in the ledger, he has no* put the correct date. This itself
clearly shows that he has with an intent to commit a criminal
act has made a fictitious entry In the ledger while he has
nut made any entry in the rough cash book. Therefore, 1
find the findings of the Enquiry Officer cannot |>e said as
perverse and l find this point against (he petitioner.

Point No* 2

h

The next point to be decided in this case ia to what
relief the petitioner is entitled to?

12. In view of my foregojng findings that the action
of the Respondent Management trt imposing the
punishment of compulsory retirement for the misconduct
committed by the petitioner is legal and justified. I find that
the petitioner is not entitled to any relief

13. Thus, the reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A. P transcribed and typed by him*
corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
day the 9th January., 200A),

Kh JAYARAMAN*Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined: —

For the 1 Party/Petitioner None

For the JI Paity/Management . None

Documents Marka^ f ~

On the petitioner's side K

Ex.No. Date Description
—Nil—

For (he It Paitv/Management

Ex, No*

Date

Description

Ex, Ml

03-10-2001

Report of I. Mohammed Gobik
Sr, Manager (Investigation
Officer)

Ex M2

33-09-2001

Complaint of P. Jayaraman

ExM3

27-09-2001

Statement ofP, Jayaraman

Ex.M4

27-09-2001

Statement of J. Rajakafinu

Ex MS

27-09-2001

' Statement of K, AnnaniaJai

EjlM6

27-09-2001

Statement of F.

ExM7

27-09-2001

Statement oFC. Jeyathandran

ExMJt

27-09-2001

Statement of C Jayaram

Ex .No.

Date

Description

EkM»

27-09-2001

Statement of R. Mumgesan

ExMlO

27-09-2001

Statement of B. Durai

ExMll

-

Savings Bank A/c No. 3914
Pass Book of Rajakannu

EkMI2

-

S.D. Ledger sheet relating to
SJLAfc No. 3914 of Rajakannu

ExJritt

02-05-2001

Pay-in-slip of Rajakannu for
Rs. 20,000 SB A/c No. 3914

RtMld

'

Respondent BankPolur Brandi
Attendance Register for May
2001

Ex. NOh Date Description

his telegram dated 21-01-2002

ExM2g 01-02-2002 Utter from Enquiry Officer to
petitioner postponing the
enquiry to 1 £-02-2002 as
requested by the petitioner by
his letter dated 30-01-2002

EjcM 20 18-02-2002 Proceedings of enquiry,

BlM 3G 05-03-2002 Telegram from petitioner to

Enquiry Officer praying to

postpone the enquiry for 15
days.

BlMB

-

Cash/Scroll Register for
02-05-2001

E)tMl6

-

Respondent Bank Polur Branch
rough cash book for 02-05-2001

EX.M17

29-10-20(11

Show cause notice to Petitioner

EX-MIS

09-11-2001

Letter from petitioner
requesting 30 days time to reply
to show cause notice dated
29-10-2001

E&M19

15-11-2001

Letter from Respondent to
Petitioner granting permission
(o submit his reply before
30-11*2001 from the show
cause/suspension notice
dated 29-10*2001

ExM20

29-11-2001

Letter from petitioner to
Respondent requesting 30 days
time from 30-11-200) to reply
to the above show cause notice
dated 29-10-2001

ExJVQl

01-12-2001

Letter from Respondent to
petitioner granting time to
submit his reply on or before
15-12-200I

ExM22

14-12-2001

Reply of petitioner lathe show
cause notice dated 29-10*2001

GslM23

08-01-2002

Charge sheet issued by
Respondent to the petitioner

EjlM24

0801-2002

Letter from Respondeni to Mr.
K. Batan appointing him a*
Enquiiy Officer

EX.M25

0801-2002

Letter from Respondent to
Mr. K. Hari Rai appointing him
as Presenting Officer

ExM26

15-01-2002

Letter from Enquiry Officer to
petitioner fixing the enquiry on
22-01*2002 and advising the
petitioner to be present at the
enquiry with his defense
representative with his

evidence.

E&M27

22-01-2002

Letter from Enquiry Officer to
petitioner postponing the
enquiry to G1-02-2002 as
requested by the petitioner by

Ex,M31 064B-2002 Letter from Enquiry Officer to
petitioner permitting 7 days
extension of time and fixing the
enquiry on 12-03-2002 and
advising the petitioner to be
present in the enquiry and also
confirming his (enquiry
officer's) telegram dated
05-03-2002 to petitioner
informing the date of enquiry
on 12-03-2002

EjlM 32 11-03-2002 Telegram from petitioner to
Enquiry Officer to postpone the
enquiry for 15 days,

E*M33 11-03-2002 Letter from Chief Manager of

the Respondent Bank to the
petitioner directing Him to
appear tor medical examination
on 20-03-2002.

ExM34 11-03-2002 Letter from Chief Manager of

the Respondent Bank to the
Director* Kumaran Hospital,
Vellore requesting to examine
the petitioner and send his
report.

ExJVt35 19-03-2002 Letter from petitioner to

RespondetU/EnquiryOffr.
requesting to postpone the
enquiry on the ground that his
defense representative has
fallen ill and admitted in
hospital and praying to hold
the enquiry after the defense
representative recovers and
reports for duty

ExM36 02-04-2002 Letter from Enqu iry Officer to

petitioner that the enquiry will
be held on 18-04-2002 and
advising him to be present
in the enquiry by arranging
an alternate defense
representative as the enquiry
has been postponed already
far 5 times at his request

ExlM 37 20-04-2002 Letter from Enquiry Officer to

[^piu— aw3(ii)]

t'ttf 1O t 200B/$*ra20,1930

21 61

lit No. Date Description

petitioner considering the
request of the defense
representative and postponing
die enquiiy to 29-04-2002 and
advising him to be present with
bb defense representative
Proceedings of enquiry
Proceedings of enquiry
Proceedings of enquiiy
Letter from Enquiry Officer to
petitioner advising him to be
present in the enquiry on
29*05-2002 for cross
examination of Jayaraman and
K. Aimamatai-enclosing copy
of enquiiy proceedings dated
13-05-2002 and (4-05-2002
Letter from Enquiry Officer to
P. Jay ataman requesting him to
appea-for cross examination on
29453002

Letter from Enquiiy Officer to
K. Aimamalai requesting him
to appear for cross examination
29-05-2002

Proceedings of enquiry -
(Enquiry concluded)
Summing up of Presenting
Officer.

Letter (from Enquiiy Officer to
the petitioner advising him to
submit summing up before

16- 07-2002

Summing up of the defense
representative - received on
17470002.

Letter from Enquiiy Officer
enclosing his findings dated
3M«0G2,

Letter from Disciplinary
Authority to petitioner
enclosing the findings of the
Enquiiy Officer and calling for
his comments - to reach before
16-102002

Letter from petitioner to
Disciplinary Authority
requesting one week time from

17- 10-2002 to submit his
comments

Letter from petitioner slating
that he will submit his reply
before 04-11-2002
Letter of Chief Manager of the
Bank in reply to petitioner's
letter dated 15-10-2002
Letter from Chief Manager of

Ex. No.

Date

Description

the Bank in reply to petitioner’s
letter of 22*10-2002permitting
the petitioner to submit his
consents be fore 04-11-2602 at
his request

EtM54

04-10*2002
(Received on
7-11-2002)

Comments of the petitioner on
the findings of the Enquiry
Office

ExM55

11-01-2000

Second show cause notice from
Disciplinary Authority to
petitioner proposing

punishment of “compulsory
retirement and calling f° r his
reply within IS days

Ex.M56

30-01-2003

Letter from Chief Manager of
the Bank advising petitioner to
submit his reply to S.S.C.
Notice before 1042-2003

ExJvi57

30-01-2003
(Reed. On
31*1*2003)

Letter from petitioner o
respondent requesting 13 days
time from0642-2003 to submit
reply to S.S.C, Notice

ExM58

0342-2003

Letter from Chief Manager of
the Bank permitting the
petitioner to submit reply to
S.SC, Nodce before 2042-2003

EjlM59

152-2003
(Reed On
19-2*2003)

Letter from petitioner to
respondent seeking one more
mouth’s time to given his reply
to the S.S.C, Notice

ExMffl

10-04-2003

Letter from Chief Manager of
the Bank to petit loner advising
him to submit his iepljf to S.S.C
Notice before 1944*2003

ExM6I

19-04-2003

Letter from petitioner to
respondent requesting 1J days
time to submit his reply

ExM£>

23442QG&

+

Order of Respondent confir¬
ming the punishment of
“compulsory retirement"
proposed by letter dated
1141-2003

ExAKG

0506-2003

Letter from petitioner to General
MwMoef/Appellate Authority
appealing against the order
dated 28*04*2003 and
requesting personal hearing

Ex.M64

0512-2003

Proceedings of personal
hearing before the General
Manager (I.A.E.) Appellate
Authority

Ex>fc5

17-052004

Letter from Chief Manager of
the Respondent Bnnk to the
petitioner enclosing orders of
Appellate Authority dated
124J-2004 confirming the
punishment awarded.

E&M38 29442002

E&M39 13452002

EkM 40 14452002
ExJVMJ 16454002

ExM42 16-05-2002

ExM43 16452002.

Ex.M44 29452002
ExM45 1546-2002
ExM46 08-074002

EX.M47 Nil
EXM4S 3049-2002

ExM49 01-10-2002

ExM50 15-10-2002

Ex,M51 22-10-2002

EX.M52 24-10-2002

EjlM53 29-10-2002

2162

THE GAZETTE t)F INDIA: MAY 10, 2008-VA [SAKE IA ?EL UUU

15 3^,2008

\jjam 1043 r —1947 {194/
14 ) ^ ^TTf 17 T STJER^T ^-s)h

tzti ^ TTCeRfa ^ Fl<W+T sfa ^

3Tptl 'ff M** £?1 £JlTW Uw TTT^TT

-ft Mtt (Wtfim n 3G/20&2) ^ U4ilfi!M
wt t, *#T ^ 15-4-2Q0& ^ umr sm

[ti 113-4101 l/2fi/l997-3^.m(^fl- ])J

l-QJZF -4IOU/09/l999-wi3ff[T-{^-1) 1
3fT*T*T 'JHK, tffaquO

New Delhi, the 15th April, 2008

S.Q. 1043.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industry I Disputes Act T 1947 (H of 1947), rhc Ccmral
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref No, 36^20021
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -Cum - Labour
Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the man&geheni of 5.E. Railways, and
flieir workmen, received by the Central Government on
154-2008.

[NcuL4IQl l/28/L997~!R(B-l)]
[No, L 41011/09/1999-1R (B-1 )j

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHR1 A. N. yadav presidingofficer,

CGIT-CUM -LABOUROOURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CG1T/NGP 36/2002

Petitioner

: The General Secretary, Parcel

Porter Sanghatana S. E.
Railway Nagpur Division,
Mot ibag Nagpur 440012

Party No. 1

Versus

Respondent

: ( l ). The Divisional Commer¬

cial Manager S.E. Railway,
Nagpur.

AWARD

Date the 2M March, 2008

The Central Government after satisfying the
existence of disputes between The General Secretary, Parcel
Porter Sangjathana, Motibagh party No ] The Divisional
Commercial Manager Party No 2 referred the same for
adjudication to this TribunaJ vide its order

|Pai<t IE- -Si -i . 3(ihl -

N o. 1.41011 2jJ : i 9i)7-1 (UI h ] I Ji. 84 )8-' 190 8 m ider c la: s*l-
[d) of *ub SucihuM 11 .i:kJ ^uh Scli ion (2 A) of Section 10 l: 1‘
the Industrial Dispute Aci. i*U7 114 of 19471 with ihe
followi ng schedule:-

2 , ,r Whether i hu fin parcel porters tus per list
aitachcd)Un“Ligedb> thedu kinual Manager S.L. Railway*
Nagpur are " work i net i' Under the provision of See .2 (S)of
The Industrial Dispute* A^t. I 9477 If so whether these fifi
parcel porters arc 10 Lv provided Ei^ht ho-urs work daily
regularly and declare Railway TunploycCS 1 ’ 7 If solo wlml
relief the work man are entitled ,1 "'

3, Again [be Cenlral Government after satisfying the
existence of disputes between The General Secretary* Parcel
Porter Sangathana, Moiibagli party No I and The
Divisional Commercial Manager Party No 2 referred the
same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its order
Ny. L-4101JT (0*l i l>t.!6-Ofi-1999underctause (d)
of sub Section (I) and Fuh Section (2 A) of Section lf> nf
the Industrial Dispute Ai;i, 1947 (14 of 1947) with the
following schedule:-

4. L_ Whether |?3 parcel porters (as per list
attached ) engaged by ihe divisional Manager S. t.
Railway Nagpur are^WurLmen*' Under the provision
ofSec.2 {S)of'1 he Industrial Disputes Act. 1947? If
&o to what benefit and Flatus they are entitle to and
from what date 1 !' 1 '

5, It seems ihui both she reference were sent to
C G I T. Jabalpur where they respectively were numbered
&$ 203/98 and 2S7 : : 99and consequent upon the
establishment of this tribunal were sent to Nagpur .
Considering tfwir.sBnihriiy of subject matcer and bein^j
between the same parties they were consolidated by giving
common number as 36/2002. After recording common
evidence and arguments 1 am passing a common Award.
On receipt of the notice. GO and 151 parcel porters as per
list, through theft Union nt^d the statement of claim with
the following contentions,

G r That they work at various Railway stations in
Nagpur Division continuously, barring some artificial
breaks, directly under ibe administrative control of the
S-E,Railways since 1994. hach worker has completed more
than 240 days every ymr si ill the Management did not
provide the job security and benefits of regular employee.
The Management enlisted and appointed them as per
selection process on interview and posted them at various
places for loading and unloading parcel opening and
resealing the wagons, cm vying the parcels from station to
the wagons and from wagons to stations they being under
the adm in istrati ve con no l. Its o tfi c er supervises ihei r work „
Earlier the Puy Master of Mnnagemenf used ttf pay them
salary on monthly basis Now it is paying at Central Govt,
rate as per Minimum Want;* Act under regular pay orders.

[*mri[—wu3(ii)]

ID, 200B/^7tre 20, 1930

2163

Th# work is permanent and of perennial nature Union has
raised demand to absorb them as regular parcel porters to
. the Stations of their working. However the management ft
not treating them at par with the casual labours and illegally
treating them as licensed potters whose service conditions
are totally different. They are performing similar duties of
the parcel porter Hamals who are the .regular railway
employees in the pay scale of Ra. 750-940 fRPSr'Rs. 250 -
3200(VPS). They were initially given work daily in alternative
months. Later on the working hours were increased to 8 by
reducing their pay without disturbing others pay. The
respondent has started die process of filling the vacancies
of Safaiwala and other group ‘D* (Class-lV) of other
Departments, It is violative of the guidelines of the Ministry.
They finely prey to declare them as railway Employee, direct
the management to provide 8 hour, to grant difference of
wages from 1994 and regular them by giving temporary
status and regular scale of pay paid of Group D on the post
of Safei wale as per their Qualifies!km and Suitability.

7. The management while resisting, claim in Written
Statement contended that though they are working as
parcel porters in feet they were engaged as licensed porters,
on payment of license fee, for carrying the luggage of the
passengers by issuing spec?' 1 notification. Each petitioner
executed an agreement which are the terms and condition
of their services. They were neither enlisted nor
interviewed . Thus they are not parcel porters or even
workers, They being licensed porters get the remuneration
from the respective passengers at the rate fixed by it. The
Minimum wages Act is not applicable to them. They are
given out door medical treatment and leave facilities only.
In exceptional cases, on their requests they were
transferred also but it has no effect on their status. The
incompetent officers of the Management have issued them
experience certificates which will not confer any right on
them. Thus the managements pleads that the petitioners
are neither the workman nor entitled for any chimed relief.
They prayed to dismiss the reference by answering it in
the negative.

8. Heard both advocates for the parties, perused
the evidence, documents and written notes of their
arguments. Hie management claims, that the petitioners
are licensed porter appointed by it without following the
recruitment process for carrying luggage of the passengers
at the fixed rates, paid by the passengers directly. Thus
according to it they are coolies , in a red uniform having,
budges permitted to work on accepting the licensed fees
and they are not their workmen. For these purpose it is
harping qn the agreements executed by the petitioners and
allotment Of the duties by rotation. However the evidence
Is totally against management. Ho doubt both the
management witnesses say that they were'engaged as
licensed porters but it is neither cogent nor reliable to
accept There is basic difference in both posts because the
licensed porters are the licensees permitted or given the

licenses to cany the luggage of the passengers at the rate
fixed by the railway administration alter accepting the
prescribed amount directly from the passengers. The railway
administration, provides them uniform and Badge who are
popularly known as coolie. They are not the workman of
the railways but the licensees paying to the railway while
the parcel porters are the workman getting salary or
particular amount as remuneration, may be on daily basis,
ftbm railway. The work of the parcel porters is to cany the
parcels from and to the office and load and unload it in the
wagons. Thus they do the work of unloading* also and
carrying the parcels from office the wagon to the office as
per directions of the railway administration for which they
are paid by railway.

9. If the evidence Is scanned and tested, on the
above basis, nb body will dare to say that they are not the
workman of the railway. They were appointed by calling
applications, after screening tests and interviews. The
petitioner’s witness, who was the member of the selection
committee, has admitted to that effect. They were never
given badges, buckles and uniform. Their presence was
marked in the Muster roll. Initially titey were given four
hours duty later on it was increased . They were working
undsT direct control Of the Railway administration. Similar
thing regarding the work they were asked to perform the
work like handling the panels including loading unloading
and even opening and rerealing the wagons. The Most
important and undisputed thing is that the Railway was
paying wages to them on monthly basis through
supervisors, station masters instate of recovering the
license fee from them. They were paid as per Minimum
Wages Act In case of licensed porters there is no question
Of paying any remuneration by Railway. No evidence is
produced to show that petitioners have paid a license fee.
Beside it there are examples of even effecting thetr transfers
by the railway which can not be a event in case of licensees.
In fact the stand of the respondent management is not
certain about the work provided to the petitioners but it is
seems undisputed that they were handling parcels ■ Had
they been appointed as licensee of coolies they were not
even entitled to touch the parcels. No doubt they have
signed the agreements separately but they will not prove
them as licensee. On the contrary they are incomplete and
seem to have obtained only to avoid their rights. They
were provided with identity cards as parcel Porters and
experience certificates . It is contended on behalf of the
management that the certificates are not issued by its
incompetent officers, alleging thereby that they are bogus.
But no evidence is adduced to show that any action has
been taken against erring officer, even their names are not
declared much Less about their incompetence. In fact for
issuing licenses to the coolies there was* no need of
effecting recruitments process on publishing a special
notification as issued on 08-08- 1994 They cannotbe called
as coolies as claimed by the management.

1536 G10B—f»

2164

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA:MAY 10, 20O8/VAISAKHA 20, 1930

[Pact II—SEC.3(ii)]

10. Aft Attempt has been made in the evidence by
Shri Murtbi to show that to the petitioners were favoured
by dip management by asking them to work as parcels
porters. However it is not the case or the defence of the
Management. There would again a question as to how the
discrimination was made leaving other coolies. Another
attempt is made by the management with a view to avoid
the liability by submitting that they were not working as
causal labours, therefore they are not entitled for
regularization. I have already concluded that they are the
workmen of railway and have completed 240 days
contiipious service. The management has admitted that
the petitioners were paid the wages as per notification of
the Labour Ministry. If they were licensee what was the
reason for paying them. One more theory is introduced
that they were absconding and therefore their services
were terminated. In one breath it is saying that they were
not their workmen and in another breath it is contending
that they were terminated, if they were not the workmen
then bow they were terminated is the question. U falsifies
the stand of Railway Management.

] I. it appears that in 1994 Railway has started the
recnnJrmefiio fParceJ Porters by issuing special notification
after cancelling the earlier practice of taking the work of
panel potters through private contractors. However when
the petitioners raised demand for job security, the Railway
Administration started harassing them. The evidence
clearly shows that they were appointed as parcel porters
and were workman of the railway right from the day of their
respective appointments. They are appointed in the year
1994'1995 and undisputedly each of them have completed
more than 240 days. The nature of their work is purely
manual I and unskilled. They will have to be treated as
workmen as defined it's 2 (s) of I.D. Act 1947.

12. It seems the petitioner Union has claimed 60 and
151 as Older Nos. L-4101 l/28/97-lR(B l)Dtd. 28-08-1998
and Order No. L-41011/9/99-IR (B-l) Dtd. 16-08-1999
respectively total 211 parcel porters are entitled for the
regularization. Even the above referred orders of the Central
Govt of India has also given the similar number of the
paste] porters. The list of the 60 petitioners in the first
order is in conformity of number given by the petitioner.
However the actual number as per appended lists with the
QtderNo. L-4101 L/9/99-]R(B-I)D«l,16-08-1999 is less by 9
parcel porters It does not confirm the claimed number of
15lporterc. It comes 143 only totalling to 203 in all. The
petitioners have given the lists of the porters working at
particular stations as under:—

(l)Kamthi Rly. Station, 16 panel potters, (2) Bhandara
Road 09,{3)Tumsar road 11, (4) Tiiuda 04, (5) Gondiya 59,
(6) Rajnandgaon 08 and (7) ltwarl Rly Station 36 parcel

porters. Thus the total comes to 143 porters besides the 60
porters/petitioners in reference No. 203/1998 makbiggrand
total of203 parcel porters.

13. The evidence is dear enough to show that the
petitioners were regularly working and the work is also of
perennial nature, Since they have completed more than 240
days they are entitle to regularization. No doubt they were
provided with ihe work for 4 hours on each day and some
times more than it but it was deliberate attempt to deprive
them From regularization. It is not at all scare of the railway
that their appointment was of some other cadre. In my view
though they were working 4 hours or some times for 8
hours they were on daily wages and are entitled for
regularization and declaration that they are the employees
of rail ways.

14, So far as back wages are concern the petitioners
have worked as per directions of the authority and they are
already paid as per their working hours. If is pertinent to
note that in remaining time they were not prohibited to do
their work, In fact they were working in addition to the
regularly appointed parcel porters hence in my view they
are not entitled to back wages as prayed. I proceed to pass
the following order.

ORDER

The respondent party No. 2 The Divisional
Commercial Manager S.E. Railway Nagpur is here by
directed to —

1. Regularize the 60 petitioners as per list
submitted Reference No, 203/1998 along with
order No. L-4!011/28/1997-lR (B-l) Dtd
28-08-1998, and 143 petitioners giving them
temporary siatus and regular pay scale of
Group D at par with the regularly appointed
parcel porters as per their qualification and
suitability, treating them as railway employee.

2 To fix their pay in die above regular cadre from
the date of their respective appointments and
giving the regular increments pay the salary
with prospective effect from the date of
notification of this award,

1 The lists of 60 and 143 parcel potters appended
along with the above numbered orders of the
Ministry shall form part and parcel of this
award.

Dated: 28-03-2008

A.N, YADAV, Presiding Officer

[RFTII—RP*3<ii)]

WIJI i 10 , 2008^ra 20,1930

1

2165

Hnto titer rhzht

HHiy^ ftrtw

TF.TL TUT

^iidoi

1 2

3 4

5

6

1.

Rw*( Fni^

gwite^Rtel

tiNNte

aim#

0W1-94

2

*tkih''i ipiA

tj. fte^l,9t#SI5lf

4 Hlstel, fa »fero

01-12-94

*HH,3nT

■gjfrr 'iiFiq? iq»il

tj. tji.tftTOnd,

4 giKH, fit W&RI

01-12-94

S.HtWlR

4

<hi-wh TfflMT qqf

wmt, 4 ^d*MK
fa

15-11-94

&HRRH

5

P|<H*h<d dlM4i<

^ Yltf £4+17, [^l€l]

01-12-94

&HR34R

6

Tfifat Fq^riLCi WFt

4ffll B l T l > K J TlMMlTp
TFl^tW^L3lttCTT

TfFf, 'FFT^

tj^i rft

1-11-94

7.

^pFTC <flkTH

gro gWPRp

11-04-94

3t.

ftYrttpTjifnw^

a,

*ikW*i Hlft

JNYlqilf gn^uTte <*qi€l

aS^trit

RTC^tp*

9.

*ft*T MYi^W

YTai [ifeRTTte]
a *ftfll^, fa *fSRF

HR rft

08-06-95

10.

TngftY’rwft^

^ ■'ft. ^iefjt

fa ^ 3ffR A

13-03-95

*

11.

ni-H4i ^c^ft oflMflu

^ 4^Sj 7T

1 ft* 3Wft wip fa injt

HR rft

01-11-94

Asntstl

12

U'ftjfl *11

[ft^]

7t ^ UYTTC te f fa *TERF

9-12-94

st.anafit

12

*U0wra ttaitai

Tffe^ 4. Rreit,
hl ’gRTRp fa i rau

9-11-94

m4.3HT

14

■HI^Y uhwI

TL HhS +< *, 'ft. RTS^t,

71 TpfTTC, fa sfelU

afltntrft

8-11-94

4(t

15

317™! T^t

tj *iiw p 4 ^nsnl

7i Tprrc, fa ^feiu

8-07-95

Rt.

16-

g*tai W'Kftjfl ftYTO

^ ^Ho[] n TOT,*M*«jl p

71 4tMcfl > fa^FlJt

HR Rt

01-11-94

^.3TR.3it

17.

TWlTRT Tfaf*

g, ^PrrR,[g^ifft]

'ft. ^ HHi'il’Sp fa Wny

HR^.

04^04-95

■ ^

18.

*7173 ^

g.

71 1^. '7ERT

23-12-94

19.

<jhWc,

^ Itiml Rt-iiii ’TO,

’'ft. Tft.SfllVfWfr 1 !,

HH ift

01-11-94

Ahr^ir

7T fa TFTJJ

2166

[Past [I—Sac, 3(ii)l

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 10, 2008/VAISAKHA 20,1930

l

2

3

4

5

■6

20.

vzrts Ript Am

g his41,

TT. f<1<lsi, fa. RSRI

ail^l^fl

11-04-95

21.

sfalR TRTR^RT

faafcRIT, RPiy

t^T- ^ff.

1-11-94

^.suraff.

22

TfaR RKW

g

tisit 3ot #n,4n
fag^fo, BWlM

RPTft, ^1# R.87

01-02-95

23.

Tc^Rt^ R’lrfH'l,

Tfl& 7+1^5, 13/4 li*l u 1 .

3fr ^fr

24.

■■RiqinH H|Ht5

3#5RRR1^ nfps.^i

C fa TWh faOTI '&&

TP’Rl

01-09*95

^ft.

25.

fiNfaftiq

C/o^tW^lW,

TR1. R. 32/2, g^. <JR*R

OH, R fJHtR tW

sfl^lTTt

01-11-94

?f.R3i3nT.

26.

TRiRI

g ’ll. rMItt, uMltieil, fit. Rttci

01-12-04

27*

ttMi4 ’ c TCfr3l7T

g Rt Rrafa, n. wteft, fa-Rsm

01-12-94

23.

ft. ftaiR ^3TTR

C/o ft. «J|'1**K 7TR gR^FPR,
rt£ «hfaM ^atf t.

T5R.3iiq r ^. 88, RRt Tl£
rI. ^'-Hd^i^LTRiy

^14lTTt

13-OS-95

29.

T®5iml rh£t, faRRpR.

Ri RRT, TRgt

gR. A\

27-12-95

m

d'HWNR -ill^lKiH

t\. RTR^irsi, Rf. ’wit,
fT. <pRR, fa, rsto.

08-11-94

03-07-95

31.

ftrifc jRrefa R?*nR

T+IRKtcfl. RT. nft’H'ffl
tn. gsRiT, fa. 1c f S1 ^

32

4^ii< wfngrt

gRl. mdio, rt.

’HtSTrft, fa, RSIR

01-12-94

33.

^TT^T tt^T^ -^TfcRT

g [ ^T5t]

Rt. HIS* it (1. fa. H5H.1

3fll

10-04-95

■ST!.

34.

g +kdi"«l, ’ll Vmiai

R. ftRter, fa. RSR!

stl^fT^fr

01-12-94

35.

-i i f i ■^ TJ T RniiI

g i'k.<r»xsl, m. hIpisI , fa. Hsn .1

3f* Bft

05-12-9+

^.3TR3ft.

36

37.

nH^I TT^

g # 3 #,r 1 wl,
rl fa, hirt

3^T5Tlft

IH-10-94

01-12-94

^t. 3tR.^t.

tft.STTC^l

RRjrn fangi

1J, p tjt, ^Vr-l'liq

m w*fa\ fa. gsra

3a

H+I¥l sIhciIcT "93

nTinsil dt ,i i*i ns! t
«?ffa T."Rl/25/6 -ih^.

m A

01-11-94

'isiRait

39

W-SHI i.HI'fll ■*U*iqiS<JJt

g [Rffa] ,4 ^m,

m Ritfim-il, fa. ■=Tmgr

YH. ^

01-11-94

zLsntill

49

fafar ’srn^t "rot

g Rt. rr# [gsr],

it. fttei,fa. ’teraftr’i. 4419H.

10-04-94

■^.STROT.

41.

’5RTRI J IN5

58/2 Tl. ’if^n-iHT, TPigt

01-01-95

Et.TlR.3TR.

[iimit-^a*Z3(ii)l 2008/^ra 20, 1930 2107

mhIh ^ Ttorfr

W.^f.

ftR

IflT

Trm

iiftoi

tirn

f

1

2

3

4

5

6

1.

ftW, p fKKI |J l, TT5T7T.

fttflviN ^wl-ft "^fWtwn

tfiji: m ft 9171116
ftl ftsfun

TEFUft.

05-01-95

■#

z

3i¥ u i

4fl'n I'H ^W6[ ^P((l<i1pi ^

■*8# %|vii -strsTR ^d

aft to.Tft.

20-12-94

It

z

4.

Pfffl

13*1, wswt*r.

TJ. HUH IL Ql+H it ^(1^1
fror Ham

Tinrt 1* ITl* 1RT

4*^hi"i *iny it hhw

3ft ftl 7ft;

&

01-12-94

^ 31R 3ft

4 snr^t

5.

■g»R w ft? 4«iicMi4ft

IFiy 26 it

151 . tfr

02 - 02-95

TSft

6.

"7^1, Tsft.

onil^u wwii fomi

toft **1Rft 60S ftty-HHHlJ
^1*13126

aftfttftt.

13-4-515

3TR

7*

JS^

mfTj 9flFT. fit. 96 ^ifl fl # K

I^PR fte lt|U4414l£) ^TFFJH 26

aftfttfti

01-02-95

dt

&

TftftT. *1^7, 'Sl-lUHl}

■ C/O ^K*il p l4 iJj4J£|

sTwihnflh ^ lH

’(praisr 0^ mi rq 5tfinr

7ft.

26-01-95

dt

9L

T&H W I 1'4

Tnj wfi^i Tfa^rm
’ ? rni3^

aftftLTft

7ft

ia

IwiH ;ft *104

^ q;itH ffr inf

cL qjrat f^lOT ^TERl it ^u*dl

3ft*frftt.

OI-U-94

HP 311?

II.

162 **Tiril4

■ii'iy 1+1^. it

^1 ttL

10—01 -95

12

TI^TT, Wl, 616 |ul

TSfrl, H iWnETlT ’11*1^ 17

^Tft.

2-10-95

7ft

13.

"ftftjl 7W1,

Tlrf W irft ^ IPty it

6°ntoto

tfl.

27-07-95

14.

4ih, J ilh^w 'yi%t

-315311 W "1KI ll^

^iftlTTT *1 ri^i it HftlTCl

01-11-94

't

15.

ft1 3 ro;*)ft v I'K

i^ r <HI*(^96 fJ a M i J K fl*Tt

IFiy

^ T^l 3TR

IS.

<l^'fll 4 H, P4 <ikjh ^TRft

md IT. iff ft.
hski it^ii^l

01-11-94 -

3l ^7T 3T|7

17.

IS.

*t ^ST^t ^ ^RR

ft irtro it.

4fllof*i tcT^ ^rrit’ii T5W4SU1
my it ’i^RiFT

sftqllft.

01-11-94

3HT

^l r ’^*T 3^17

19.

»lft*,4|1Sll4 ***

h.

ihftlFT

my it 4vnin my

ft.

■#

216g

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 10, 20Q8/VALSAKHA 20,1930

[Past II —Sec, 3(ii)]

ANNEXEURE-C

LIST OF THE PARCEL PORTER WORKING AT KAMPTEE RAILWAY STATION

S.No.

Name and Address

Dale of Appointment.

Age

Cast

Sig,

1

2

3

^ 4

5

6

1, '

Sri. Sunil Kumar Hariprftsad

Ya(fav h

Rfr, Qtr.No,C7*/l

Motibaglh Nagpur,

16 Nov. 1994

26

OBC

1

Sri, Anin Ramlal Wanjari

K. K. Nagar Ramlek

1 Oct. 1994

25

OBC

1

Sri. Jagdish Sewarai

Thaware,

Rly. Qtr. Na L-7/6

K.K. Nagar Ramtek.

1 Oct. 1994

30

SC

4,

Sri. Rajesti Sam&rth Banscd

Rly.Qtr 77/7

Motibagh Nagpur

J Jan. 1995

16

SC

X

Sri Fulchand Arjun

Rahgadaie,

Rfy. Qtr. 38/5,Itwari

Near Rly. Hospital. Ngp

1 Oct 1994

29

OBC

6,

Sri. Mahendra Daulatrao

Ramtek,

L-9GHB-21/247

Hudkoo Colony Nara Road

Jaripatak, Nagpur.

16 Oct. 1994

34

SC

r

Sri-NageshPiahlad

Gsjbhiye,

Sesh Nagar Khare Road

Hasonbagh Nagpur

16 Oct. 1994

28

SC

s.

p

Sri. Sanjay Mahadeo

Jinde.

Rly. Qtr. No, CTL/39/17

Hamal Kholu Itwari,

Lakadganj. Ngp.

16 Oct 1994

26

SC

9.

Sri. Rajesh Kesho Washik

Rly. Qtr.No. 170/3

Motibagh, Nagpur.

16 Oct. 1994

24

SC

10.

Sri. Radhesbam Kallo

Gomdhar.

Khtshan Colony Near

Maodhir Bezonbagh- Ngp.

16 Oct 1994

25

SC

1L

Sri Hansraj Khandekar

Santiih Vdo Sutting Bada
IndoraBhima Chowk

Nera Road. Nagpur,

16 Oct. 1994

27

SC

12

Sri. N, Srinivasa Rao

C/oN. L. Naidu, S.E, Rly.

Qtr, No. GL 57/4,

Bczanbagb (Post) - 440054.

NGP.

25 March 1995

29

OBC

[«PIII—W3(ii)]

IQ, 2008(^!W20,1930

2169

I

2

3

P

4

5 6

13.

Devendra Bhagwaudas Rangari
RJy.Qtr. No. 172/2, Mount Rood
Nagpur.

16 Oct. 1994

29

SC

14.

Sri. Aran Baburao Waghado
Gandhi Wand Deawadhi
P.O.Tumsar Rood Tumsar

16 Oct. 1994

29

03,C,

IS.

Sri. DeepakNagorao Kathara
Empress Mill's Co tony Block No.

106 Bezan Bogh, Nagpur

l6Qct. 1994

34

SC

16.

Sri. Satanam Singh S/o Rattan
Singh Motibagh Qtr. Na 171/1
Nagpur-440004

Id Oct 1994

33

UJL

ANNEXUREC

LIST OF THECASUAL PARCEL PORTER WORKING ATBHANDARA ROAD RAILWAY STATION S, E, RLY,

NAGPUR DIVISION

S.

Name

Fttfwr o«*e

Pitt of

dais of

Addran C«t* Qiiflilftcatun

Extra

Sigiw-

No.

birth A

Appot,

lute

Age

ff union

L

2

i

4

S

* 7 8

9

10

i.

Nandkishor

ChimanGajbhiye 22

Nandkiahor SC.

ChimanGajbhiye

ChimanGajbhiya

At+PO- Retail wady,

Tha GoodiaDi.

Bhandara

(Maharashtra)

,

i

VBtaaBakanim

Bakaram Feodre

30

Vikas BFendke, CBC

Feodre

-

At+Post: Mohadi

Tha. Mohadi

Oandh Wand Dia.

Bhandara

(Maharashtra)

i

Sanjay Sahaliknin

Shalikram

24

Sanjay CBC

Narwwliya

Ngrwadiya

ShaUcram

Nanvwdiya, Sunil
Kirana Store,Near
ofSmol Datha
MandirTJ.Toli
Gondii

4, Aravind Kumar

Ambika Prasad

25

18,10.94 Aravind Kumar Other

Ambika Prasad

Tiwari

Tiwari C/o Shri

Tiwai

AP.Ttwarl.Rly,

Colony Qtr No.

C/15 Bhandara

Road Post,

WanhiDist.

Bhandara Pin.

441905 (MS)

1 Harikisan Natthuji NattujiBhurc

24

18.1054 Harikisan OBC

Bhnre

Bhura.S/oShri

Natthuji Bhure

At SonoLi, P.O,

Wartfai.lb.Mohadj

Di, Bhandara Pin.

441905 (MS.)

THE GAZETTE of INDIA: MAY 10, 2O0K/VAISAKHA 20,1930

& Keshav Pandurang

Pandurang Meshram

Me shram

7. Kaneha Ram prasad

Ramprasad Gupta Gupta

8, Manoj Kumar Jagdbh Prasad 27

Jagdish Prasad Shukla

Shulck

9. Shiva Bhaderaka Bhadaraka 44
Meshram Meshram

[Past II—Sec, 3(ii)l
9 10

1-2-95 Keshav S,T. 4th Pass

Pandurang
BJwla School
Back up Potcr
Rume ChaJeT 7/4
23-10-94 Kaneha OBC,

Ram Prasad Gupta
At+Post Bhandara
Road, Tha. Mohadi
Subhash Ward
Di$tt:Bhandaia.

1-2-94 Manoj Kumar OBC, 9th Pass
Jagadish Prasad,

Shukla, Moribagh
Bhoslewadi 14
Near uf Post:

Bezonbagh

Nagpur.

1-11-94 Shiva SC.

Bhadaraka
Meshram At:

SuWiash Ward 9
Warthi

Dist: Bhandara
Pin-441905

ANNRXUEG

LIST OFTHE CASUAL PARCEL PORTER WORKING AT TUMSAR ROAD RAILWAY STATION S- E. RLY.

NAGPUR DIVISION

01. Aiay Yadav

Father name

Chotelal Ysuiav

Dale af Date of Address

Billh & Appoim-

Au merit

0£* Kashi Ram Sathavne Slutaram Salhavne
03- Ajay Gajbbiye Sambahj i Gajbhiye

04. Sanjay Yadav Chotelal Yadav

05h Ghanshyam

Biranwre

1-12-94 Moribagh Qi. NT
No, L 47/1,
Post^BezanbagJi
Near-Kalamandir^
Nagpur.

SC.

NehamMarg, SC.
MazzidVarli
Bhandara Rd.

16-11*93 MotibaghRly.
Qtr.No.L37/l
P r 03ezanbagh
C/o, Kalamamdir
Nagpur.

Gandhi Wade
P r O. Dewadi Teh
Bhandara,
TumsarRoad.

Extra

Signa¬

quali¬

ture

fication

9 10

[»PT1I

—■W*53(iD]

W^iTTNOT; ^ 10, lOOSdrra 20,1930

2171

1

2

3 4

5 * 7

8

9

10

’ 06-

Marati Kttmble

Gandi Wade^.O.

fe

Dewad 1, Teh.
Bhandara,

Tunuar Road.

07.

Raja Shadeo

Shadeo Sbendc

1-1294

OS.

Fakarudddm

MalUMohd.

Post. DevadL, OBC
Tumsar Road.

w.

Anish Khan

Rahim Khan 25-5-70

1-11-94 Plot No. 5em, OBC

-

Gandhi Layout

JaffrrNagar

NagpuM400J3

10.

Abhiman

laytaru

OBC

Choudbary

Chou dtary

n.

AnilVithobtt

Vithoba Kotangle

SC

ANNEXERE-C

LISTOFTHE CASUAL PARCEL POSTER WORKING AT TTRQOA RAILWAY STATION’S. E RLY., NAGPUROMSION

a.

Name

Fattier Name Dele of

Dele of AAlnest Cure

Qualification

Extra

Sign*'

Mo.

Birth or

Appoint-

quili-

ture

Aga

merit

fiention

1

2

3 4

5 6 T

S

9

10

01.

Dilip Dongre

Nathuji Dongre

i ll-94 KamieeRiy. SC

Colony Tah.

Kamptee. Distt
Nagpur.

01

Surest

BabuRao

1-1294 Rly. Station

Tiro da Tah.

Tiroda, Dim.
Bhandara. .

03.

Pramod Savaji

Dhondusa Savaji

1-11-94 Rly, Police

Office Jori Wadi

Plat No. ID. Ajni*
Nagpur.

04.

Avinash Mobile

Shuklal Motile

1-11-94 HamalKhoK,

Qlr. No.8, Jtwflri,
Nagpur.

ANNEXURE-C

usroFiicfliRcafOHfisit working at gohdi a railway station.

&

Milne

A4bu

Appoint Slvtlon C*rtc

Education

Age

Stpulnm

Mo.

■

meol

Date

1

2

3

4 5 6

7

a

9

01.

Anil Kuhdu

ALMamdad

8-H-94 G NX

30

Padole

P

Post. Madgi

Th. Tiimsar
Dist.Bhandara

1526.GUOS—10

2172 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA:MAY 10, 2008/VAISAKHA 20,1930 [P«ti II—Sec. 3(ii)]

1

3

3

4

5

6 7

i

*

02.

RamkaranJojister

Wighmare

At Motibagh

Nagpir.

10-11-94

G

26

03,

Runesh Murlidhar
Lute

Vishally Nagar
Nagpur

1 CM 1.94

G

OBC 9th Pass

26

Oi.

Anil Chandrabhan
Meshram

Betty shop

Quarter Bezenbagh
Nagpur.

10-11-94

G

S.C.

29

Prakadi Kewaldas
Rangari

J.P. Nagar Kamtee
Th. Kamtee

Dtett Nagpur.

II-N44

G

1C

34

06.

Rqjendrapras&d

RamprasadPal

Nagpur

04-12-94

G

07.

$ibh Govindno

P«U

Goillypura

Jaibbim Chowk
Kamtee;

Dist Nagpur.

11-1145

G

1C.

01

RameshwarSrtaram

Lanjewar

At. Godekhari

Post. Kawalewada
Th. Goregaon
Dist.'Bhendaro.

13-01-95

G

O.B.C

28

09.

Sanjay Mahadeo
Bnkar

At Mothakamtce
Tb + Kamtee

Dist Nagpur

2S-01--95

G

O.B.C.

28

10.

Nathu Mahadeo
Borkv

At, Mothakamtee
Th* Kamtee

Dist Nagpur

28-0145

G

O.B.C.

33

11.

Prakash Yadeo

Basant Nagar
Gondia,

Dist Bhandara*

280145

G

O.B.C.

29

12.

Sbrini was Veer

Rqju

28-01-95

G

13.

Mahesh Prajapoti

28-01-95

G

O-BjC.

28

14.

Shrikrishna Ramaj i
Sathawane

At, Kard£

Post. Kardi

Th. Mohadi

Dist. Bhandara.

01-0045

G

11

Pawankumar

KishorilalDhare

At. Lodhitola

Post. Cbutiya

TIl Gondia

Dist Bhandara

034245

G

28

ia

Suraj A rondos
Kathane

At. Ram jjiad Good
Shed Kamtee

Dist Nagpur.

034045 .

G

S.C

34

17.

Rokesh Fakirchand
Snwaitul

At. NayaGootfcm
Shed: Kamtee

Din. Nagpur

03-02-95

G

S.C.

31

(iotii— w3(ii))

^ 10, 2008/*71W20,1930

2173

1

2

3

4

5

6 7

»

It

RqjuNadnyi Doagre

Railway Station
Railway Quarter

No. 1 Kamtee

Dial Nagpur

030205

c

sc..

30

19.

Iswarsingh Gokul
Sinih Madbvi

Civil Line Rly.

Ward, Con dia

Dist Bhandara.

13O&05

0

S.T.

■

2a

CirUhSttikar

Dhawade

■

14-02-95

G

&.C. Xth clan .

passed

21.

Ashok Mansaram
Ch>ndankAr

avil Lire Rly. Ward
Goodin.

DiaL Bhandara

21-48-95

G

OBdC.

31

22.

Nageshwarran ‘
VeerRafu

24-03-95

G

Telega

23-

Axhok Oavindi
Mishar

SulezariNagbhld
Dbt Chandrapur

034H95

h

G

21

BaptlnoArjui

Batuod

Post. Berdipar
Kahewani

Th.Tirora

Dist Bhandara.

KW95

O

S.C.

25.

VgayUitjwar

23-0695

G

26.

Abdul Kalam

Sheikh

Basant Nagar
Goodie

Dist Bhandara

234695

G

Muslim

27.

Saq)aykumar

Satnbhu Ysdeo

Civil Lino Rly. Ward
Condia.

Dist Bhandara

2641695

G

O.B.C,

2 1

MMlbrndin

LanraniUikey

At Post Darakara
Th. Sakkua

Dht Bhandara

264)695

G

S.T.

22

29,

Seyatnalkuinar

Modak

Rly, Colony Near
Rest House Condia
Dist Bhandara.

174695

G

Bengali

21

aa

OtnprakashMaroti

Mane

Laxnol Nagar Wd. 16 230695
Goods

Dht Bhandara

G

*

3L

SuuQPnnihl

Dhm

Civil UneRly.Wd
Gondia

Diat Bhandara

264)695

C

&t.

29

32.

MohapatBakaram

Midy

At. Mndgi Th.Thora 264)695
Dist Bhandara

O

33.

ChenkjwfttrGajbhiyc

7-795

G

31

Silesh Shrawan

294)695

G

2174

THE GA ZE TTE OF INDIA: MAY 10, 2008/VAISAKHA 20,1930

[Part II—Sbc. 3{ii>]

]

1

3

4

5

6 ^

9

35.

Hanumantrao

Babuiao Chandankar

Civil Line, Goodia
Diet Qhandara.

280695

G

O B.C.

36.

Sunil Jairam

KAfiweflot

Gautamnagar
Doubling Colony 1

29-06-95

G

S.C.

26

Goodin

Dist. Bhandara

37.

Ravistiankar
Preibchand Bathawa

Civil line near
SaiMandir.Gotidia
Dist. Bhandara

28-06-95

G

39.

Ralwsh Madavi

13-07-95

G

S,T.

39,

Rakesh Madavi

13-0745

G

ST.

4a

Ramkrishna Sakaram
Bohare

Civil Line near

Loco Sbed Gondia
Dist. B bandars

234)7-95

G

one.

24

41.

Paras Gyaniram

Borkar

Ambedkar Ward
Gondia

Dist. Bhandara

080845

G

S.C.

42.

Jitendra Dashral
Damahe

01-09-95

G

43,

Ravi Tejram Raul

260905

G

44,

Anantkumar

D,Kht>braghade

3009-95

G

s.c.

45.

Ravindra Anandrao
Thaial

Master Colony
Near Haniunan
MandirGondial,
Dist. Bhandara.

02-10-95

G

O.B.C

28

46.

Iswarrao Chhinarao

04-1005

G

N.T.

25

47.

Shankar Jivlane
Meshratn

30-10-95

G

48.

Paras Manohar
Mendbekar

57, Skrinagnr near
Darshan Colony,
Nagpur

Disl. Nagpur

25-11-95

G

S.C.

34

49.

SHvaji Punjabrao
Khapare

Singaltolv
Ambedkar Wd.
Gondia

DisL Bhandara

25-11-05

G

S.C.

12th Passed 31

5a

Manoi Par ashram
Meshram

2S-U-95

G

51.

NavinRajaram

Thaware

New Indora
Jaripatka. Nagpur
Dist. Nagpur

28-11-95

G

S.C.

12th Fail 27

32. Bhusan Ganesh
Sahare

OHJ2%

G

S.C. 12th Passed 25

iwnwn io, 2oo8/imr 10 , imo

anj

1

2

5

4

5

6

7

a

9

53,

RameshNakaraji

Gonue

At Mandhad

Post Madgi
TttTumsar

Dist Bhandara.

034246

G

OJS.C.

10th Fail

22

54.

Bhagwan

Sadashivji Tbawkar

At Mandad
post Madgt
. Tli. Tkimsar

Dist Bhandara.

0342-96

G

03,C.

4th Fail

31

55.

RajeehAtmaiam

Supatkar

REflUy.Qtr.

Kalmna, Nagpur
Dist Nagpur.

RJH

■

56.

Tejram Balaam
Tulxikar

Near at Water Pilfer 254345
TapltKudwa

Kntangikala, Gcndia

Dist Bhandara.

0

oac

BAIL

3B

57.

Vikas Mitnram
Bhnmardc

1-9-95

G .

S.C.

34

SSL

Shailesh Shavan
Bagde

WarphakadBada
Indont Nar& Road,
Nagpir.

300644

Gcndia

f &c

9th Passed

32

SR

GaneshRaoji

Hotter

Laahkarihflgh,
Aifibcdkar Colony,
Nagpur.

15-08-95

Gcndia

S.C.

9th Passed

W

ANNEXUR&C

LIST OF THE CASUAL PARCEL PORTER WORKING AT RAJANANDGOAN RAILWAY STATION, S.E. RLY,

NAGPUR.

SL

None

Filler Name

Dale of Birth

Date of

Address Caste

QualF

Extra

Nil

Appointment

frcrtion

1

2

3

4

5

6 7

8

9

01.

Rajesh

Al-

1-11-1971

1-445

Kalmuna OlRC

SLS.C

N,C C.

Supadcar

supfltkar

Rly.Quateir

Passed CertL

NoJLE/II

Mh.

&Elec

/5/A Old

Board

Ekctr

Ju&ttpweKcL

Certi-

Nagpur440026

ficste

02.

Duswant Kumar

Bharatial

14-8-75

3-6-75

VUIJfcFost 03.C..

i2di

m

Dtiwangan

Dcwangao

Dhangoao.

Dist.Rtqnand-

goan(hLP)

4914441.

paw

Trade

03.

ManiklalDewangaiL

Raghuber

25-12-75

3-645

Vill.&Fost OBjCL

llth

Dewangan

Dhangoan.
DistRajnan-
dgoan (M.P)

4914441.

pass

2176 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 10, 200&/VA1SAKHA 20,1930_[P*RT II—SbC. 3(ii)J

1

2

3

4

5

6 7

8

9

04,

Shod Chowan

Udaram

Cboware

21-1-73

27-4-95

New SjC.

Khalashi Line
Kanqrtee 441002

Dist-Nagpur.

12th

pass

English

30w.p,

05.

JalilBeg

SattarBeg

1-7-68

8-4$4

NewNakasha Other
Cfo Rafique
Opp.Masjid,

Nagpur.

8th

pass

Turner

Piactic

Wok

06.

ShyamUl [tout

Rambaran

Raoul

3-7-1972

1995

Darekasa, ST.

P.O.Derekasa

Tah.Salekasa

Dist. Bhandaia

12th

07.

Sanity Khcbragade

Domaji

Khobragade

7-8-76

13-9-95

Hiwari Ngy, S,C.
Plot No .47

8th

pass

—

Oft

Pramod Khabragade
Khobragadi

Shfiram

9-4-78

16-1-95

Newlndora S.C
Republican

Nagar, Jari

Patlca, Nagpur.

S.S.C.

ANNEXURE-C

LIST OF THE PARCEL PORTERS AT ITWAR1 RAILWAY STATION SE. RLY NAGPUR-

a.

Name

Address

Age

Signature

Qualification

No.

1 .

Rajesh Paudc

Chocks Colony, Nagpur

28

12th Pas*

1

Anad Naidu

Buddha Ngr, Nagpur.

M.Cotn

1

Klshor Maroti
Meshram

S.E. Riy. Colony,

Motibagh, Nagpur

26

12th Pass

4.

Rajesh Shripat
Gedam

Panidurgawali Ngj\

Nagpur

30

9th Pas*

5.

Dioesh Ehymaro
Ingole

S.E.Rly. Colony,
Motibagh, Nagpur

23

10th Pass

&

Sandeep

Damodhar Budhe

A.P.Tumser, T,

Tumsar, Dist.Bhandara

31

B.Com

F

7.

Devidas Hari
Madame

S,E. Rly. Colony,

Itwari, Nagpur

28

10th Pass

8.

Gopal Buddharam
Raut

Model M i It Chal No-4,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur

35

10th Pass

9.

Dipak Devman
Shame

Kapil Ngr, Nari Road,
Nagpur

23

12th Pass

10.

Moreshwar

Masboinwar

Shanti Nagar, Nagpur.

28

9th Pass

11.

Madhukar Ramaji
Meshram

Anguli Mahal Nagar,
Nagpur

9th Pass

10, soowfcro 20,1930

2177

1

2

3

4

5

6

7 8 9

11

Jitendrafialdeo

Chouhro

Ran Nagar, Nagpur

28

sdy-

lOlhPau

13.

Shaikh RaAq

Shanti Nagar, Nagpur

37

Sd/-

8th Pass

14.

Shaikh Babbu

Shanti Nagar* Near Garden*
Nagpur

40

15.

Keshav Kove

Shanti Nagar, Nagpur

40

Sd/-

9th Pass

1&

Damodhar Kot*ngte Rqjfv Gandhi Nagar, Nagpur.

41

17.

JajremShyamifact

Near Bhmtiya Akhsda, P.Q
Nayapura, Nagpur

’

IB.

KavdkFakra

Minimata Nagpur,

33

Meshram

Nagpur

19.

Babin DoUet
Yadao

Shanti Nagar, Nagpur.

40

2a

Shankar

Behind Pest Office,

32

Sd/-

9th Pass

Nmmv

PA). Narapura, Nagpur

21.

Bipudu

Rani DwigttwauNgr.,

34

Vkbaha

Nagpur

22.

Sachin

New Buddha Vihar,

21

Sd/.

lOthPass

Sbyamrao

Bankeda, Nagpur

21

Lamm

S.E. Rly. Colony,

26

Sd/-

12th Pass

Yadavrso

Kamtee, Nagpur*

24.

Sharad Haridas

Behind Kabrastan,

28

Sd/-

10th Pass

Lonara

Jarfpatta; Nagpur

25.

Abhay Nipanc

Nandanwan Colony,

Nagpur.

Sd/-

12th Pass

36.

Ashok Radhumrfh

Panchashed Nagar,

27

Sd/-

12th Pass

U(*y

Nagpur

27.

Mancthar

S.E. Rly. Colony.

33

Shymarao Ingole

MotOugh, Nagpur

>

21

VipyLalaji

At Mandat, P jO. Badgj,
THansr

39.

KnlpatTikaiani

AtUsarla, P.O.Tumsar,

Dist. Bhandara

45

30.

Mabendm

JagdiriiNgr, Xatol Rd.

24

Sd/-

10th Thus

RimlodianShukla

Nagpur

r

31.

CajananNagorao

Shove

3$, Ayodhya Ngr, Nagpur.

25

Sd/-

10th Pass

32.

Mdubr

Bhuiesbwar Nagar, Nagpur.

33

. t-

**--tLt*UlpM

Mflncoimre

Gohate

B,

Reshsii

Murlidhar

Near Buddha VBiar
Indore, Nagpur

26

Sd/-

12th Pass

34.

Rlvinder WssnBc

Phamnudeep Nagar,
Nagpu

35

Sd/-

9th Pass

35.

JitendraDomaji

Rangarl

Jaripadca, Nagpur

31

Sd/-

BjCcml

2178

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA:MAY JO, 2QQ8/VAISAKHA 20,1930

[Pari ll— Sec, 3(ii)]

^ IS 2008

mao, 1044,—sufaftRir, 1947 (1947
7114) ^ TO 17^

^ irtwftr ^ tw® r^Wl sfa Titf 4»tS+i(f $ IN,
if P|ftM sfaftfror |il4ll4 ^’sQh TOR
afflWEWSR -4WW4,TtMjjl^■cfms 11/199$)

7*1 u^iftm «tfl t, - ^ <6 h 041 *K4ii*7rt i i - 4-2008
137 *tu

[U T^T-12012^64/94-^131R<U-TI) ]

«fc4k, iw 4rfMw*|fl

New Delhi, the 15th April, 2008

SAX 1044—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Mnttrtal Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 11/1995)
iHw Ci pfcsl Government industrial Ttibunal-cum-Lubour
0e*nt, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Allahabad Bank arid their workmen, which
wu received by the Central Government on ] 1-04 2008

[No, M2Q12/264/94-IR(MI)]
RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

AjVN’EXL’RE

BEFORE SHRIR G SHUKLAPRESIDING OFFICER
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNALrOUM-LABOUR COURT,

SHRAM B HAW AN, AT 1 CAMPUS,

UDYOG NAGAR, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 11 of 1995
In the matter of dispute between

UP BANK EMPLOYEES, UNION,

HWIltf BHA WAN,
lMtf£*A4^vil Limes Kanpur.

The Chief Manager,

Ailrintod Bank, Zonal Office,

Kanpur.

AWARD

1, Central Government, MOL, New Delhi, vide
uotificadonNo.L-l2012/264/941.RB-II dated 12-01-95, has
referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for
attfadkatton:

Whether the action of the management of Allahabad
Bank Kanpur in dismissing ShriNatwar Lai Tan don
clerk from the service of the bank w.e.f,25-08-94 is
legal and justified? If not what relief is the said
workman entitled?

2. The case of the union on behalf of the workman as
setup in the statement of claim in short is that a fraud is

alleged to have been committed at Pheelkhana Branch of
the Bank at Kanpur in which the Manager and Assistant
Branch Manager viz Sri K. L, Tandon and R, R. Bajpai
respectively were reportedly involved and both the officers
named above are under suspension from the bank and are
on bail where after neither any action against them has
been initiated by the bank nor by the-CB.I. which has been
investigating the case so for The manager remained posted
at the branch for about six years against the term of three
years prescribed in the bank for their posting at a place for
the officers including manager? and after that he was
transferred to LajpatNagar Branch of die Bank at Kanpur
and in a couple of months he was again posted at
Pheelkhana Branch of the Bank. In the same fashion Sri
Bajpai the Assistant Manager was transferred to Rania
Branch of the Bank and thereafter he was again allowed to
be posted at Pheelkhana Branch of the Bank, The manner
in which bolh the officers of the bank were retained at
Pheelkhana Branch proves that the Assistant Genera!
Manager, Kanpur and the Regional Manager of the branch
were mvolvedneck deep in the alleged fraud The Regional
Manager of the bank unfortunately happened to be the
disciplinary authority in die case of the workman and the
Assistant General Manager also happened to be the
appellate authority and both of them remained silent so far
relating to in itiation of disciplinary action against the Branch
Manager and the Assistant Manager of Pheelkhana Branch
of the bank but preferred to proceed against the workman
and some other employees of the bank. The workman was
placed under suspension by the bank on 17-3-94 and later
on served with a charge sheet dated 39-05-94, by the
Regional Manager / Disciplinary Authority.

3. it is the further case of the workman that a regular
departmental inquiry was ordered by the disciplinary
authority by nominating inquiry officer vide letter dated
20-06-94 and the enquiry officer issued a notice fixing date
of enquiry as the date of preliminary hearing. After the
same enquiry fixed on day to day basis from 12-97*94 to
16-07-94 and on ail these dates the workman participated in
the inquiry. However, on the next date of inquiry i.e.
19-07-94, the workman who had been the old patient of
diabetes, hypertension and heart ailment being unable to
bear the tension and strain of the inquiry fell ill and
submitted an application supported by medical certificate
of his illness, seeking adjournment of inquiry, which was
highly objected by the presenting officer regarding grant
of adjournment on the pretext that the workman should be
got examined by the Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur. The
enquiry officer agreeing with the demand of the presenting
officer ordered the workman to be got examined by the
Chief Medical Officer and to produce his certificate the
same day Le, on 19-07-94 latest by 4,00 p.m. It was intimated
by (he defense representative to the enquiry officer that
the medical certificate will be dependent upon the
availability of Chief Medical Officer. Kanpuir. However, the
enquiry was adjourned by the enquiry officer to 20-07-94,
for hearing in the case.

[■Rm ll-^« 3(ii)]

W tUVR t 10, 2008/$¥lW 20, 1930

2179

4. It is further alleged that die defense representative
on 204)7-94 deported the enquny officer that the condition

wwtanm had deteriorated totto
and therefore he had to be rushed to the Cardiology
Institute, Kanpur, where Sri S. S. Sin glial, Professor end
Director of foe Institute checked foe workman end in
support of foe same, prescription prescribed by foe doctor
was also enclosed with foe application moved before foe
enquiry officer on 20-07-94, which was strongly opposed
by foe presenting officer and font during foe course of
discussion in foe enquiry it was also informed by foe
defense representative that foe Chief Medical Officer will

not examine any employee unless he has been referred by
the bank or hl$ employer. On fob the emptily was adjourned
to 23-07-94, whir direct km to the presenting officer to
arrange bra letter of reference front the bank to foe Chief
Medical Officer and foe same was arranged on 21-07-94,
which was delivered ait the residence of foe workman at
4.00 pjn.cn 21-07-94, The workman with foe help of the
said fetter dated 21417-94 of the bank approached the Chief
Medical Officer, Kanpur, on23-07-94, as in the said letter a
direction was containing that workman may submit the
certificate of foe Chief Medical Officer by 25-07-94. The
Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur, telephoned foe authorities
of the bank to depute some officer to identify the workman
as there was no mark of identification of foe workman on
foe letter dated 214)7-94, thereafter, the presenting officer
went before foe Chief Medical Officer for Identifying the

workman and did not report back and got recorded this
fed in foe proceedings recorded on 23-07-94. The Chief
Medical Officer observing that foe workman is heart patient
referred the workman before Dr. V.M. Khare, Heart
Specialist, of the District Hospital of Kanpur who after
examining foe workman referred some pathological tests
and in fob way workman remained busy for his medical
check up from 23-07-94 to 27-07-94.

5. It Is alsofoe case of fee workman feat on 2B-07-94
the Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur, fatally examined the
workman end advised that the medical report will be sent
to the bank directly by him in due course of time. The
enquiry officer adjourned the enquiry to25-07-94, to bring
the certificate of foe Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur, and
aenda copy of the proceedings to fee workman by speed
post which was received by fee workman.

fc It is also alleged that foe enquiry officer instead of
waiting for the certificate of fee Chief Medical Officer,
Kanpur, held the enquiry on 25-07-94, behind the bock of
fee workman, of which, copy of proceedings were received
by the workman on 29-07-94, purported to have been
dispatched by foe bpnk on 264)7-94. Being unaware of the
proceedings of the inquiry the workman continued visiting
to the doctor and the enquiry was finally concluded by the
enquiry officer on26-07-94.

7. Coming to know about fee closure of the
proceedings by foe enquiry officer, the workman wrote a

tetter to foe enquiry officer on 01 -09-94 which was received
by hini on 02-08-94«t his resid en t at Meerut end tin this
corentunkation ir was made elere by foe workman that as
the doctors had advised him rest for two weeks, therefore,
the proceedings of the inquiry may be stayed until the
recovery ofthe workmen. No actiononfee stid Application
j ofthe workman Was tskenbyfee enquiry officer; Still he
submitted his findings on 93-0S-94; to fob-Regional
Manager of the Buk. Subsequently vide bankaletter, the
workman was informed that instead of Regional Manager
of foe Bank, Chief Manager wifi operate as disciplinary
authority in the care of fee workman. It is alleged feat it is
without any authority, and therefore, is notopstaiubfe in
the eye of few,

I. The Chief Manager bsued a show exuse notice to
the workman proposing the punishment of dismissal from
the service of the bunk. It wu also htdkmed in foe said
show cause notice feat fee workman wrll alro bc given
persona! hearing on 244W-94 before paasiag final orders in
the case, but said opportunity could not, be availed of by
foe workman due to development of hqgi.feknd pressure
as a resug of which he was rushed to the hospital, where
foe attending doctors considering' the seriousness ofthe
ailment of the workman admitted him in emergency on
224»94. ■

9. The wife of foe workmoh wider (he facts end
circumstances of the case informed fee Chief Manager
about foe workman's critical condition with request to
postpone the date of personal hearing or that he may hold
fee persortal hearing at the hospital, 1

10. The union raising the present industrial dispute
looking to the high handedness of the authorities of the
bank raised an industrial dispute before Regional Labour
Commissioner (C), Kanpur, still the Chief Manager and the
Disciplinary authority ofthe bank passed Qn25-Q8-94, final
order in the case dismissing die workman from foe .service
ofthe bank without providing him. opportunity of. being
beard on fee quantum of punishment. In the lost it is alleged
that the entire action of fee bank in, the naipe of the
disciplinary action against the workmen is Illegal^ arbitrary,
discriminatory, against roles governing the service
conditions and rules of natural justice, therefore, fee same
cannot be .form basts of awarding capital punishment. It
has also been prayed that fee punishment awarded to the
workman on the basis of illegal enquiry be set aside and he
be reinstated in the service of foe bank with fill back wages,'
continuity of service and all other consequential benefits.

II. Ti e claim ofthe workman has been countered by
the opposite party bank vehemently on a number grounds,
interalia,that while the workman was work(rtgatPhrelkharia
br inch of fee bank at Kanpur, a fraud worth Rs. 22,70,00,000
■ is detected in the month of February 1994, wherein
ontribution of gross negligence ofthe concerned workman

in discharging his duties was also revealed and
consequently the wurkmai was placed under suspension

1520 GWOB—11

2180

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 10 P 20Q8/VA1SAKHA 2Q ± 1930

[Past II—Sec. 3(ii>]

on 17-03-94 p followed by charge sheet dated 3D-Q5-94 P to
which no reply was submitted by the workman, He was
due for his retirement on 31-0S-94, and therefore, with
ulterior motive he opted to create hindrances in timely
completion of domestic enquiry instituted to probe into
the charges leveled against him and he also avoided
opportunity of personal hearing against the proposed
punishment so that the same may not be completed before
he retires from service and It is in this perspective that the
attitude of the workman right from the stage of domestic
inquiry need to be looked into and judged.

12. It is also alleged by the opposite party hank that
the inquiry against the workman was instituted by the
Regional Manager of the Bank vide order dated 20-06-94,
wherein enquiry officer and presenting officer were
appointed simultaneously by the Regional Manager and
Disciplinary authority of the bank in the ease of the
workman. The proceedings of the enquiry were conducted
by the enquiry officer with due intimation to the workman
and on the request either by him or by his defense
representative the proceedings of the inquiry were
adjourned almost for 7 times and finally the workman
abstained from participating in inquiry from 19-07*94
onwards on the pretext of health ground which was
obviously with malafide intention to get the inquiry
proceedings lingered on till he retires on 3 l-flfl-94 and it is
so that the workman did not cooperate with the inquiry to
escape infliction of the warranted punishment for hi & gross
negligence on duty. The enquiry officer was under the
facts and circumstances of the case was left with no option
but to conclude the inquiry by proceeding exparte against
him as the workman was due for his retirement on 31 -08-94,
Having come to the conclusion that the charges against
the workman stands proved and also that the workman
was bent upon to delay the disciplinary action deliberately,
he was awarded the punishment of dismissal from service
on 25-08-94 under cteuse 196(a) of First Bipartite Settlement
dated 19-10-66, which was got published in the leading
newspapers of wide range Like Dainik Jagarart and Pioneer
of 26th Instant of August 1994, It is also alleged that the
enquiry officer provided all reasonable and possible
opportunity to the workman in the matter of his defense
during the course of domestic inquiry and followed the
principles of natural justice and rules governing the service
conditions applicable on the workman. Enquiry findings
are perfect and legal and there is no perversity there,
therefore, the same docs not call for any interference.

13. The workman himself avoided personal hearing
for the reasons given above. There is tio illegality in the
inquiry against the workman and the workman was awarded
punishment which commensurate with the gravity of the
proved misconduct. Lastly it has been prayed that the case
of the workman is devoid of merit end is liable to be rejected.

14. In the instant case the tribunal vide its order dated
20-02-9$, has framed a preliminary issue to the effect as to

whether domestic inquiry conducted by the management
was not fair and proper and the arguments on the
preliminary issue were heard by the tribunal r Thereafter*
the tribunal vide its award dated 16-11-98 answered the
reference against the workman holding that the inquiry
conducted by the management was fair and proper and it
was also held by the tribunal that the dismissal of the
workman isjustilled.

15. It is pertinent to point out that the award dated
16-11-98 of this tribunal was challenged by the workman
before the Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad by way of
filing Civil Misc Writ Petition No.4896 of 1999. The Hon'ble
High Court vide itsjudgment and order dated 03- L 0-07 was
pleased to quash the award of the tribunal and was further
pleased to remand back the case to thb tribunal for deciding
it a fresh after providing opportunities of hearing to the
contesting parties.

16. After receipt of certified copy of the judgment of
the Hon'ble High Court, registered notices to the
contesting parties were issued by the tribunal. On
29-11-07, when the case was taken up for hearing both
contesting parties advanced an arguments before the
tribunal that they are not inclined to adduce any evidence
oral ordocumeniary and that they will confine their
arguments only to the point of quantum of punishment.
Ultimately final arguments in the case were heard.

17. Since both the sides have no objection with regard
to the fairness of the enquiry by the enquiry officer, the
finding with regard to the fairness of the enquiry obviously
goes against the workman. Now simple question with regard
to the quantum of puni&hmeni has to be looked into.

IS, It is alleged by the learned representative of the
workman that the workman was not in the authority of
passing any cheque or giving the amount to any customer
and be was only the person who was making entries in the
long book with regard to the alleged cheques through which
the transactors for the amount alleged io have been
defrauded by other persons have been done and they are
involved in the alleged fraud,

I9h The learned representative for the management
submitted that due to gross negligence of the worker the
fraud had been committed and if the worker would have
been vigilant the fraud could have been detected at the
initial stage and the gross loss to the bank could have
been avoided,

20.1 have given anxious thought lothe arguments of
the patties and have carefully gone through the evidence
on record. The sole allegation against the workman Is that
he wus not vigilant and careful in entering the said cheques
in the Long Book through which the same were duly passed
by die higher authorities of the branch. In the charge shuel
there is no mention I hut the workman had any hand in
making loss of Rs. 22 Croreto the bank. It is also alleged
that tie did not receive any benefit out of the said fraud or

*m vrtwnr: io» 2 D 0 */ 4 vra 20, 1930

21*1

he had engulfed this amount forhb own use. In each charge
mentioned in the charge sheet it Is mentioned that one IUL
Bajpai and anodier K. L. Tandon had countersigned the
different cheques or the payment of the cheques were made
without proper clearing etc. Some cheques wen with held
illegally and payment of them was made. But (here is no
mention in any of the charges that the worker who Involved
In die above acts. Only allegations hi these charges are
that due to hb negligence such transaction took piece and
frauds werecomnhted upon the bank. For example charge
no, 7 it» categorically mentioned dial on Q24)6-93 Sri Satijai
Somani the prime culprit and the mastermind behind the
fraud perpetrated on the bank, and presented cheque for
Rs.36,00,000 drawn by M/s Sukesh Investments Private
Limited favouring self drawn on Punjab National Bank
U.P.Stock Exchange and another cheque for Rs. 35,00,000/
laces drawn by M/e Somani Investment. U revealed that
the said cheques were not sent in clearing for collection
and the said Sri Somani was fraudulently accommodated
by crediting of Rs. 91,00,000 in his respective account at
the branch. The allegations against the workman is that
while writing credit entries in the long book he negligently
over looked that the relative voucher of such a high value
was single handedly passed by Sri K.L. Tandon, aforesaid,
he negligently ignored that the said vouchers were oat
counter signed by Special Assistant which could have
been noticed by him had he been folly vigilant but be failed
in discharging his duty honestly and deligently as a result
of which perpetration of fraud could be detected. In other
charges also similar allegation of omission and negligence
has been made. In other words it was"the act of other
officers who actually committed fraud, manipulated the
accounts, fabricated the cheques and not the workman
who actually did not do any act of fraud or manipulations
in the cheques for getting any benefit for himself or to his
associate. He simply could not notice the fraud of others
who were high authorities to him. He was not authorized to
check deeds ofhis superior officers. It was also not possible
because no duty was cast upon him to cancel the entries
made by his superior officers such asR. R. Bajpai and K. L.
Tandon. It is admitted by the learned authorized
representative of foe bank that these peoples win were in
hand and glove with each other are still working in the
bank. The poor workman has been dismissed for his
negligence only. Had be been the person who defrauded
the amount of Rs. 22 Crore Jcapital punishment of dismissal
from service would have been justified but this punishment
on the fads and circumstances of the case is too harsh and
cannot be allowed to be sustained- It is argued by the
learned representative for the bank that as the retirement
date of the workman was nearing therefore he was awarded
capital punishment as die recovery of the defrauded amount
was not possible under short period oftime. This arguments
of learned representative of the bank cannot be accepted
for the simple reason that in cose a person was going to
retire, the amount regarding which fraudwas committed
could not have been recovered from bun during die service
so he should be awarded extreme penalty of dismissal.

Even by the dismissal of the worker the bank could not be
able to recover whole of foe amount, in other word* dm
circumstance cannot be held to be pressing circumstance
as to award punishment of dismissal.

21. Considering die fact that foe workman was not
directly involved in the alleged fraud due to which a k>» of
Rs. 22 c*ore was caused to the bank, ends of just ice would
be met if the extreme punishment of dismissal from sendee
awarded to foe workman by the punishing authority is
modified to the extent that be be treated to have been
compulsorily retired from the service ofthe bank from the
date from which final order was passed by the punishing
authority. The workman shall be entitled for all
superannuation benefits following his retirement.

22. Accordingly for the reasons discussed above,
the punishment order dated 25-0£-94 as aforesaid awarded
to the workman for his dismissal from service is hereby set
aside and it is awarded that he shall be treated retired from
service from 25-8-94 with superannuation benefits and other
consequential benefits attached with foe post,

23. Reference is answered according in favour of the
workman and against the opposite party,

R. G SHUKLA, Presiding Officer

^ Wt, 15 silei, 2008

WJSKT, 1045,—afaiHH) PWK OllWRqH, 1947 (1947
foT 14) ttS MTU 17 ^ wnn, tItjvi 4e»

tflTer sTsHi^TWMtnt^ Pill'd wT afrr
aiiiilPw.

1/2004)

vft i re i ft ET TE S TKMi’t 1 l : 4-200*

[*l M^T-12011/204/2005-3^ ’Rrc(’fo-lI)]
tilw’H iLS srfljqirtt
New Delhi, the 15th April. 200*

S.O. 1045.— In pursuance of Section 17 ofthe
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), foe. Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No, 1/2004)
ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-La hour
Court, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Allahabad bank and their workmen, which
was received by the Central Government on 11-04*2008.

{Nb:L-l2011/204/20Q3-IR (B-Il)]
RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 01 of 2004

Parties: Employers in relation to die management of Central
Bank of India

AND

Their workmen

Present; Mr, Justice C,P. MISHR A, Presiding Offish

2182

[Part II—Sec, 3(ii)]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA; MAY 10» 2008/VAISAKHA 20 h 1930

On behalf of the
Management

On behalf of the
Wockmen

Mr, K, Tarai, Manager,

Mr, K, Sen, Assistant
Secretary of the Union.

State: West Bengal. Industry: Banking. ^
Dated: 31st March, 2008,

AWARD

By Order No.L-1201 l/204/2003/IR(B*II) dated
l 94) 1 -2004 the Central Government in exercise of its powers
under Section 10(lXd) and (2A) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication:

“Whether the action of the management of Central
Bank of India in terminating the service of Shri
Babulal Roy is justified? If not, what relief the
concerned workman is entitled to?"

2. This reference has been made at the instance of
Central Bank of India Employees Association, hereinafter
to be refereed as the Association. The case of the workmen
as it appears from the statement of claims of the Association
is that the Central Bank of India, hereinafter to be referred
as the Bank is a Public Sector Bank and the service
conditions of the workmen of the Bank are governed by
Sastri Award as modified subsequent Awards and industry-
wise bipartite settlements and other relevant labour law s.
There are in-house settlements also between the Bank and
the workmen governing certain aspects of service
conditions, mainly promotions etc. The Bank appointed
on 17-08-1998 Shri Babulal Roy the concerned workman in
the permanent vacancy of sub-staff at its Bhawanipur
Branch under Kolkata South Region, His service was
terminated cm the dose ofbusiness on 30-04-1999 without
any notice to deny him the benefit of regularisation in the
post and pemiaittftt status as required under law and service
conditions of the workmen in banking industry. The
concerned workman served Bank in the permanent vacancy
ofsnb-ataff for about 243 days from 17-8^-1998 to 30-4-1999
continuously and in interruptedly with full satisfaction of
his seniors and the Bank In this connection some
documents have been referred to by the Association. It is
categorical case of the Association that the Bank
terminated and retrenched the concerned workman
unlawfully without complying the conditions precedent to
retrenchment as prescribed under Section 23 F of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter to be referred a*
the Act. The Association and also the concerned workman
protested against such action of the Bank and demanded
his reinstatement in service, but without any effect,
hereinafter the Association raised an industrial dispute
before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central),
Kolkata and the said conciliation officer held conciliation
in the matter which ended in failure and ultimately the
present dispute has been referred to this Tribunal for

adjudication. According to the Association it is well settled
Jaw that when the provisions of Section 25F of the Act are
not complied with the retrenchment is ab initio invalid,
void and inoperative and the workman is entitled to be
reinstated in service. It is accordingly prayed that an Award
may be passed declaring the termination of service of the
concerned workman by the Bank as voidab initio, improper,
unjustified and unlawful and directing the Bank to reinstate
the concerned workman in service with full back wages
and consequential benefits from the date of his termination.

3. The case of the Bank as it appears in its written
statement is that the present reference is not maintainable
as there was no employer -emlployee relationship between
the Bank and the concerned workman. The reference is
also stated to be not maintainable because the workman
did not specify the date of reinstatement, nor such date is
mentioned in the schedule of reference. On merit the case
of the Bank is that the concerned workman was engaged
by it through the Head Peon/Jamadar at its Bhawanipur
Branch as Coolie to do some jobs as and when required
and he was paid for the same through vouchers which
were duly signed by the said workman in token of receiving
the amount mentioned therein. He was engaged for
supplying drinking water in the absence of the concerned
regular staff during the year 1998-99 intermittently and
payment for such work used to be made through petty
cash vouchers by the Head Peon^Jamadar of the Bank.
The Bank had to recruit a regular sub-staff through local
Employment Exchange against any permanent vacancy
after following certain procedures for recruitment, but the
concerned workman was not appointed through
Employment Exchange, nor he was appointed after following
such procedure for recruitment. The Batik has denied the
claims and contentions of the Association in seriatim. Jt is
staled that since no appointment letter was issued to the
concerned workman for his such engagement, termination
of his service without notice does not arise. The Bank has
admitted the existence oflhe letter dated 04-09-2000 of the
concerned Branch of the Bank, but It is stated that writer of
this letter in fact counted Ihe total calendar days for the
period 17-8- 199S to 30—4 -l 999 without consulting the petty
cash vouchers relating to the concerned workman. It is
further stated that he was not engaged against a regular
vacancy and it is not a case of termination from service but
a case of de-engagement from service and as such he
cannot claim any bene tit for such de-engagement. He does
not come within the purview of '"workman" as defined under
Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by virtue
of his nature of work with the Bank and as such he is not a
workman. The prayer made on behalf of the workman is
slated to be unsustainable and not maintainable,

4. Both the parties have exhibited certain documents.
Out of the documents filed on behalf of the workmen Ext.
W-L is the letter dated 04-09-2000 ofthe Bhawanipur Branch
of the Bank addressed to the PRS. Department of the Bank.

10, 2008/$TIW20, 1930.

ExtW-2 isthe tetter dated27-12-2000 written by the Chief
Manager (PRS) to toe Central Office oftheBank. Ext. W-3
is another letter dated 01-01 *2002 written by the Chief
Manager (PRS) to tbeCaniral Office Of theBank. Ext W-4
is the letter of theAteociation dated 274I6-2DQ3 addressed
to the Assistant Labour CoatniissioiKtfCcfitral) raising the
industrial dispute in question. Ext W -5is the letter dated
28-08-2003 written by fte Conciliation Office to the Central
Cowl regarding Mure of coocttiatioiL Ext. M-lis the same
as Ext W-3. Ext M-2 iaa letter dated 01*12-2001 written by
the Chief Manager (R&P) of the Bank to the Chief
Manager(PK5)i Zonal (Mice, Odcutta-Eat. M-3 is same as
Ext W- 2 .Ext M*4 ba letter dated 14-07-2000 written by the
Regional Manager addressed to the Assistant Labour
Commissioner (Central), Kolkata. EXL M-5 is same as.
Ext. W-5. Ex. M-6 Jstbe letter dated 12-07*2003written by
the Senior Manager of the Bank to the Regional
Offlce(South) of die Bank Ext M-7 is 40 Petty Cash Slips
showing payment to the concerned workman.

5. Both the sides have examined two witnesses each.
On behalf of the workmen die concerned workman Shri
Babuhd Roy has been examined as WW-1. He has staled in
his deposition that he joined the Bbawantpur Branch of
the Bank in the year 1902 when he was. engaged by the
contractor. Bright India Chemicals for dusting and cleaning
ofthe office premises. In the year 19S8 the earlier contractor
was disengaged. After 1988 he used to go to the Post
Office for posting letters and also making over cheques to
Cassoram Industries Ltd. He was also doing the work of
Peon h the office in the absence ofthe regular Peon. As a
Peon be was doing work in the Mini Deposit Dept of
Savings Dept and also in the Current Deposit Dept, in the
absence of the regular sub-staff He was doing all these
work opto April, 1999. He has also stated that some
temporary staff in other branches of the Bank were made
permanent. He also requested the Manager for making him
permanent, but the Manager retrenched him thereafter. He
then approached die union to take up his cause. In cross-
examination he has stated that he was working as
contractor's man b the Bank and he was domg die job of
cl ea ni ng and dusting and he was disengaged in die year
1998. He was doing be work b die Bank as die regular
staff wert doing. He was working in the Bank, throughout
the month and Ms working hows were flwn 10.30A.M. to
5 P.M. His payment was on daily rate end he was hot paid
b the sahuy register, but through voucher. He has also
staled that be was not engaged in the Bank through
Employment Exchange. He could not say whether the Bank
Marni er had the authority to engage auch staff in the
Bank and bow. He also does not know how the temporary
staff are paid- He has sttMad that he was engaged by the
Manager but not Jamadar. He was getting Rs.25 per day
and the payntem used to be modem him through vouchers.
According to him be was terminated on05-04-1999.

WW-2, Pn rimal Chancha Das was working b the
Bhawampurfiranchof the Bank from 1988 to July, 2004 as

2183

Stenographer-ciim-Typist He has stated that the concerned
workman was working there as a member ofthe sub-staff
andbe used to go to tMOeurmg House, Regional Office,
Post Office etc. He also worked indlfteremsectionsjofthat
Branch. The concerned workman was directly under the
supervision and control of die management of the Bank
and he was paid through vouchers signed by either
Manager or Accountant. According to him as per Bank’s
norms if a workman works for 24ft days continuously within
a period of 12 months, he can claim permanent absorption
ip the Bank. In cross-examination the witness has stated
that the concerned workman was not appointed in the Bank
following, the procedure. There was no muster roll in the
Bank lor recording his attendance. He, however, cannot
say who employed the concerned workman or whether he
worked continuously or whether he was serving glasses
of water while perfomiilg his duties! He also does not know
whether the concerned workman got his service through a
contractor. According to him he had heard that the
concerned workman worked for240 days in a year.

6 . On the other hand, MW-1, Samir Kumar Das die
witness for the management was a Clerk oftheBank posted
at Bhawanipur Branch from November, 1984 to December,
2000 . He has stated in his evidence that in die said Branch
there was no sub-staff named Babulal Roy. He does not
know whether Babulal Roy was working the Bank as a
daily-rated worker. He also cannot say how he was
appointed iii the Bank. He has stated in his evidence that
in the said Branch there was no sub-staff named Babulall
Roy. The said concerned workman used to serve water
amongst the staff and his work was not similar to the woik
of other members ofthe sub-staff. His attendance was not
kept like die attendance of the other members ofthe sub-
staff, but the witness has not been able to say who used to
mark his attendance. He used to get @ Rs. 10 or Rs. 15 per
day as his payment through petty cash voucher or
miscellaneous voucher on daily-rate basis. TTiis witness
has however stated later that the concerned workman Was
entrusted with the Bank’s work by either Jamadar or Head
Peon and be used to serve water and also asked to do
oiher jobs. According to the witness the rules applicable
to the regular members of the staff are not applicable to the
casual workers. In cross s- exam in atioo the witness has
stated that concerned workman used to work when regular
members of the sub-staff, were absent. The concerned
workman used to work under suspension of the Jamadar
and Jib work was also partly under the supervision of the
management. He has also stated that one Sukumar Das
was working in the concerned Branch as a Peon and
probably he got the service after working for 240 days. Hie
also stated about one Sital Kianar Banetjee who was working
as * bay-cura-Fetm & toe Bonk rad in b& place the

concerned workman used-to serve water amongst the staff
members. He admitted that in such circumstance the
concerned workman was virtually working in the post of

im

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 10 t 2G0E/VA1 SAKHA 20 r 1930

[Paft U—Sec 3{u)]

substaff. He also admitted that as per Ext. W*1 the
appointing authority of concerned workman was the
Branch Manager. He has further stated that probably any
employee cannot apply for the post of sub-staff in the
Bank unless he had worked for 240 days continuously and
the rule is that after proper inspection the concerned
workman's name was recoinmertdcd to the Central Office

MW-2, Kalyan Chowdhury was the Branch Manager
of (he concerned Branch of the Bank from November, 2003
to July, 2006 and he has seen the concerned workman
working there as a Canieen Boy. He has stated that as
Branch Manager he never engaged him as a sub-staff in
the Branch and it was not in his knowledge for what reason
the concerned workman was engaged as he was not
engaged during his tenure there. During his tenure in the
concerned branch there was 7 or 8 sub-staff. He could not
say for how many days per month the concerned workman
go* the job in the Bank on daily rate basis. According to
him Head Peon engages she daily labourers for Bank's Job
but not the Brunch Manager and Head Peon or Jamadar
supervises the job of such laboured The salary of the
daily rated workers are usually disbursed through petty
cash vouchers. Further, daily rated workers cannot be
treated as temporary or casual workers. He ha£ stated that
the daily rated workers do not get the same facilities like
the regular sub-staff of the Bank, no appointment letter is
issued to them and the circulars issued by the Ministry of
Finance are no4 applicable lo them and they cannot get the
benefits of the Industrial Disputes Act. He T however* docs
not know whether the concerned workman was paid on
monthly basis because he never worked under him.
According lo him the concerned workman cannot be
considered as a regular sub-staff of the Bank as per Bank's
service norms. In cross-examination the witness has stated
that he was in the Zonal Office ofthe Bank from September,
2000 to June* 2003 as Senior Manuger*PRS. He has admitted
that whatever written in Ext. W-2 regarding the concerned
workman are correct L He has also stated that whatever
information they receive from the Branches are sent to the
Central Office ofthe Bank.

7h On the perusal of the aforesaid evidence led by
the parties and their respective claim in this regard it is
evident that the concerned workman admittedly did not
work after 30th April, ! 999 in the Bank, According to the
workman he had worked for more than 245 days from
17th August 1989 to 30lh April, 1999 in the Bhawanipur
Branch under the Calcutta South Region of the Bank till
30lh April 1599. but h is services were terminated thereafter
to deny him the benefit ofregularisatiort The management,
however, has challenged the aforesaid fact by saying that
he was never appointed as per recruitment rules of the
Bonk through Employment Exchange against permanent
vacancy, but he was first engaged for supplying drinking
water during the said period and for that payment was
made to him throng petty cash vouchers through the Head

Peon ofthe Bank. His engagement was intermittent and
not on regular basis. His hours of work was also not like
other regular sub-staff and he was paid on nowork-nty-
pay basis and so even if he had worked for 240 days in a
calendar year there is no question of he being regularised
as a regular staff as he was never appointed in any
pernwra/tf vacancy ofthe Bank as its sub-stall The alleged
letter dated 4th September, 2000* Ext. W -1 referred to above
by the workman was in fact sent by the Branch Manager of
the concerned Branch who had no authority as Branch
Manager to engage any person against a regular vacancy
without following the formalities and procedures applicable
for making such appointment like that of a regular sub-
staff.

4L All these facts and evidence as led by the parties
in this case show that the workman admittedly had never
been so appointed by way of any regular appointment that
applies to the appointment of a regular sub-staff As per
his own statement the workman himself has slated that he
had joined the concerned branch of the Bank in the year
1982 as engaged by The contractor and in the year 1988 he
was further .engaged for posting of letters ofthe Bank, in
the absence ofthe regular Peon. Ln the cross-examination
he has admitted this tael ihu lie was working as contractor^
man in the Bank and his payment was made on daily rate
basis and not through the salary register, but ihrough the
vouchers only from time to time, [t was also admitted that
he was not engaged in the Bank through Employment
Exchange for his appointment as a regular sub-staff. So is
the statement of other witness Parunal Chandra Das on his
behalf who also stated that the workman had not been
appointed in the Bank following the procedure as per rules
and also that there wa* no muster roll in the Bank for
recording his attendance. According lo him he had only
heard that the concerned workman had worked For 240
days in the Bank for a year bui has got no peramaL
knowledge about the same.

The evidence led by the management in this
connection on the contrary is quite clear to show that the
workman had only worked in the Bank a$ a daily rated
worker and for that he was paid @ Rs. 10 or 15 per day
through petty cash vouchers on daily rate basis. The rules
applicable to the regular members of the sub-staff could
not be applicable to his case. The statement given by
MW-2* Kalyan Chowdhury who was the (hen Branch
Manager of the concerned branch also go to show that a^
Branch Manager he had never engaged the concerned
workman as a sub-siatT in the Branch and for that no
appointment letter was issued to him. So far as ihc detail
information as given vide Ext. W-2 regarding the concerned
workman, it has, however been stated by him to be correct
one which also goes to show that the workman had worked
for more'than 240 days in the branch in that capacity.

9 All these facts as stated on behalfofthe concerned
workman and his witness and the witnesses examined on

[dFTH—*PS3(ii)]

TITO : ^ 10, 2008/fclW 20, 193Q

ms

behalf of themanagement together with file documents
dearly go 10 show diet the workman had never been
appointed as a member like that of a regular sub-staff after
Mowing the due procedure of recruitment under the roles.
These abo go to show diet die workman bad woriced for
more than 240 days fat a year in the concerned branch as
per Exts. W -1 and W2, which is so admitted by the
management wHneasM'2, KatyanChowdhuiy as well. The
nature of appointment of the workman goes to show as
such that he was just a daily rated worker engaged from
time to time by the Branch Manager not on any permanent
poet or vacancy but he was just paid a small amount through
petty cash vouchers in the Bank for the service as it was so
rendered by him in this regard. It also goes to show that he
was not engaged by the Bank a$ such after 30th April,
1999. It is an admitted fact that no notice was given for
such disengagement or retrenchment by the Bank though
the period of more than 240 days work had been done by
the workman in the Bank after which he was permanently
disengaged without paymg any compensation as required
under Section 25F of the Act in this regard

10. In view of the facts on record it is clear that the
termination of service of the concerned workman was not
in conformity with the provisions of Section 25F nfthe Act
and it cannot be said to be legal. As regards about the
relief as claimed by the workman for reinstatement with foil
back wages etc. it is evident that even if the termination of
his services is held to be not justified as per provisions of
the Act it is not necessary that in afl such cases the general
rule is that of reinstatement with back wages as the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in number of cases has laid down
about the legal principles to be applied for such cases by
taking a pragmatic view in the matter and by keeping number
of factors in mind viz. that an industry may sot be compelled
to pay to the workman for the period during which he
apparently contributed a little or nothing at gll. It has been
held by the Hon T ble Apex Court in Haryana Roadways v.
Rudhan Singh (2005 AIR SCW 4634) that the workman
who bad worked for a short period, i.e,, less than a year or
so and having regard to his other basic qualification etc.
bock wages were denied to him although the termination of
his service was found to have been made in violation of
Section 25F of the Ad The Hon’ble Apex Court observed
that the principles to be considered for awarding bock
wages or compensation etc- is to be guided by number
of factors to be considered for the same It was observed
tint:

"There is no rule of thumb that in every case where
the Industrial Tribunal gives a finding that the
te rminati on of service was in violation of Section
25-F of the Act, entire back wages should be awarded.
A host of factors like the manner and method of
selection and appointment, i.e., whether after proper
advertisement of the vacancy or inviting applications
from the Employment Exchange, 1 nature of

appointment, namely, whether ad hoc; short term,
daily wage^ temporery or permanent bi chtracter, apy
special qualification required for foe job and the like
should be weighed and balanced in taking a decision
regarding award of beck wages. One of the important
Actors, which has to be taken into consfderatieQ, is
the length of service, which the workman had
rendered with the employer if the workman has
rendered a considerable pc, !od of service and his
services are wrongfully terminated, he may be
awarded foil or partial bocfrwiges keeping in view
the fact that at his age and the qualification
possessed by him be may not be in a position to get
another employment. However, where the total length
of service rendered by a workman is very small, the
award of back wages for the complete period, i.e.,
from the date of termination tiU the date of the award,
which our experience shows is often quite large,
would 'be inappropriate. Another important Actor,
which requires to bo taken into consideration is the
nature of employment. A regtikr service of
permanent character cannot be compared to short or
intermittent daily wage employment though it may
be for 240 days in a calendar year."

In Allahabad Jal Sansthan V. Days Shankar Kai,
(2005)5 SCC 124:2005 AIR SCW2646after considering the
relevant cases on the point the Hon’ble Apex Court
stated:

“We have re feted to certain decisions of this Court
to highlight that earlier in the event of an order of
dismissal being set aside, reinstatement with foil
back-wages was the usual result But now with the
passage of time, it has come to be realized that
Industry is being compelled to pay the workman for
a period during which he apparently contributed little
or nothing at all, for a period that was spent
unproductively, while the workman is being
compelled to go back to a situation which prevailed
many years ago when he was dismissed. It is
necessary for us to develop a pragmatic approach to
problems dogging industrial relations. However no
just solution can be offered but the golden mean
may be arrived aL”

11. Considering the aforesaid facts and
cireumstances of the present case it is evident that the
workman had only worked for a short period from
17-08-1998 to 30-04-1999 in foe Bank as a daily rated worker
and his such appointment was not like that of a regular
sub-staff according to the established procedure of the
Bank. He was asked by the Branch Manager to do the job
of a Peon on daily rate basis for which he was paid by the
Bank through petty cash vouchers, In view of foe settled
legal position by a recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court (2006) 4SEE 1 (Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others
Vs. tjmadevi(3) and Others) any person who has been so

218 6

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 10 P 2008/VA1SAKHA 20,1930

[Pakt II—Sbc.3{u)]

appointed not inaccordance with the proper procedure or
as per recruitment rules* any such benefit of regularization
or absorption cannot be extended to him merely by hfc
long period of service in the establishment since he was
not appointed as per procedure applicable to the
appointment of its staff. It has been observed therein that;

“43. Thus, it is clear that adherent to the rule of
equality in public employment is a basic feature of
our Constitution and since the rule af law is the core
of our Constitution, a court would certainly be
disabled from passing an order upholding a violation
of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the
need to comply with the requirements of Article 14
read with Article 16 of the Constttutionn Therefore,
consistent with the scheme far public employment,
this Court while laying down the law* has necessarily
to hold that unless the appointment is in terms of the
relevant rules and after a proper eompetitian among
qualified persons, the same would not confer any
right on the appointee. If it is a contractual
appointment, the appointment comes to an end at
the end of the contract, if it were an engagement or
appointment on daily wages or casual basis* the same
would come to an end when it is discontinued.
Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to
be made permanent on the expiry of his term of
appointment It has also to be clarified that merely
because a temporary employee or a casual wage
worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his
appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed
In regular service or made permanent merely on the
strength of such continuance, if the original
appointment was not made by following a due
process of selection as envisaged by the relevant
rules. It is not open to the Court to prevent regular
recruitment at the instance of temporary employees
whose period of employment has come to an end or
of an ad hoc employees who by the very nature of
their appointment, do nor acquire any right.*'

In this view of the settled legal position by the
decision of the Horf ble Apex Court the concerned workman
is not entitled to got any relief for reinstatement or
regularization as it is so claimed by him even if his
disengagement is held to be otherwise being not in
accordance with the provisions of Section 25 F of the Act
for want of any notice or for want of any compensation
paid to him in this regard*

12. Some relief, however* deserves to be given to the
concerned workman as he was not served with any notice
or paid any compensation before he was so disengaged
though be had admittedJy worked for 240 days in the
Sank in that year vide Ext. W -2 and 50 it was required for
the Bank to have paid him the necessary compensation as
required under Section 25f of the Act, The workman as
such is entitled to get the amount of compensation looking
at nature and period hrs work Instead o f grant mg a re i ief

of reinstatement to him with back wages, a lump sum
compensation of Rs. 15,000 (Rupees fifteen thousand)
deserves to be awarded to the workman in the given facts
and circumstances of the case of this nature. The
aforementioned amount shall be paid to the workman fay
the Bank within a period of a month from the date of fills
Award becomes enforceable.

The reference is answered accordingly.

C. P. M1SHRA, Presiding Officer.

Dated, Kolkata,
the 31st March, 2008.

fe'vft, 15 2008

351 , 311 , 1046.—1947 0947

14) ^ tJTTT 17 ^ ^fj i*i> ^

^ TRTO 7^ c n-4'Ti Ml ^

^ it TTrra; (wf WfT 20/2006)
y^iTVici ^ 11 -4-2008 ^ hi 1 ^

*jri

[H. T?a -12012/127/2005--M ) ]

New Delhi, the 15th April, 2008
ShO. 1046,—In pursuance of Section 17 of ihe
Industrial Disputes Act., 1947 (M of 1947)* the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award {Ref 20/2006) of
the Central Goverment Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court* Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between ihe employers in relation to the
management of Canara Bank and their workmen, which
was received by the Central Government on 11-04-2008.

[No. L'12012/127/2005-lR(B'l!)]

RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDIISTRIALTR1 BUN ALtCUM*LABOUROOUKT,
CHENNAI

Tuesday the 26th February* 2008
Present: K + JAY ARAM AN, Presiding Officer
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 20/2006
[In the matteT of the dispute for adjudication under
clause (d) of sub-section (1} and sub-section 2(A) of Section
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act h 1947(14 of 1947), between
the Canara Bank Management and their workman]
BETWEEN

Sri M V elay tidbam : Pethioner/l Party

No. 3S n Vanniampathi Street
Raja Annamalaipuram
Chennai-600028

AND

The Assn. Manager : Respondent/ll Party

Canara Hank Circle Office
563/1, Anna Salai,

Teynampet Chennai-60001K

[*MU—W3(ii)]

qinr^npni? :nf io, 20o&4tiitiT2o, 1930

21 ST

For the Petitioner : M/s T.R. Safeiyamphan

For the Management : M/s. Ba|an Haridaa,

RKamatcbiSunderesan

AWARD

Hie Central Government, Ministiy of Labour vide its
Order No. M2012/)27/2005-{m<B-If) dated24-02-2006
referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal
far adjudication.

Hie schedule mentioned in that older is:

“Whether the action of the Management ofCanai*
Bank b imposing the punishment of Compulsory
Retirement upon Sri M. Velayudham, Ex-Clerk is kg&l
and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled to7"

2 After tike receipt of the Industrial Dispute this
tribunal has numbered it as ID No. 20/2006 and issued
notices bob sides. Both sides altered appearance through
their advocates and tiled their claim A counter statements'
. respectively.

3. Hie allegation In the claim statement are briefly as
fellows:

The petitioner joined the service of the Respondent
Bank as sob-staff on 19-12-1979. Ha was promoted as a
Clerk duriqg the year 1967. While be was working in
Mowbrays Road branch, he was placed under suspension
by an enter dated 09-07-2002 on the allegation of some
misconduct Subsequently, charge sheet dated 16-01-2002
was issued'to him. Hie substance of the charge is while
checking with the LCCH (Local Clearing and Cash
Remittance) slips dated 04437-2002 issued by the Accounts
Section, Chennai and received by the bank on 03-04-200(2,
there was a difference of Rs. 20,000/- and it was further
alleged the petitioner tampered with the IjCCR, removed
the cheques already lodged in the clearing waste and
thereby helped the patty deriving undue pecuniary gains.
The above acts 1ms caused considerable interest/inemne
loss to the bank and the action of the petitioner was
prejudicial to the interests to the bank. A domestic enquiry
was ordered to be conducted against him and m that the
Enquiry Officer ha* given a finding dated 29-11-2003
holding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against
him. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment
of Congndsary Retirement by an order dated 14-01-2004.
Even though, the petitioner preferred an appeal, the same
went against him. The allegations levelled against the
petitioner are without any substance! He was entrusted
wife mamjaldeoringwtAaa tKtwa* not qualified to opentte
computers. Only die Brandi Manager was discounting fee
cheques of M/s. Orion Form on regular basis. The cheques
so discounted were issued by M/s Indian Appareb having
ar count wife Syndicate Bunk, KK Nagar, Chennai. The
Branch Manager, Mr. Stidham was fee person who was

receiving the cheques for being discounted from Ms. Poqja
Shamnugham who was authorized by M/s Orion Forms to
discount. The said Manager had! been doing all kinds of
undue favour to tills customer for quhe long period. Only
based on the particulars furnished to fee petitioner, he will
prepare LCCR bar and also make corresponding entry in
the LCCR register. After LCCR prepared by the petitioner
in fee first floor, it was sent to the ground floor for being
signed by the concerned Officer. After LCCR be mg signed,
they were tagged slangwife fee cheques and they were
put in a bag and placed inside a pigeon hole. All these,
processes will be completed by I P,M. end immediately
thereafter the bag was taken from fee pigeon hole by the
sub-staff for delivery to fee Abhiramapuram Branch for
encoding. Thus, in fee entire transaction, the role of the
petitioner is very limited. No instruments come to hint white
preparing LCCR. Further, fee LCCR so prepared were
checked by the concerned Officer and they authorize die
same. Further more, periodical LCQR Reconciliation
Statement were also prepared by fee petitioner and also
the same has been checked and authorized by Sri
Ramarafeinam (Officer) and by Sri Sridbaran, Branch
Manager. Thus, the petitioner was not handling arty of the
instrumenta/cheques. In fee enquiry, there was absolutely
no evidence to fee allegation that fee Petitioner removed
the cheques discounted by M/s Okm Forms. It Is only the
Branch Manager who was in fee helm of fee affairs had
been conniving wife M/s Orion Forms and fee petitioner
had been made a scapegoat for the illegal transaction
happening at fee instance of fee Branch Manager. The
Branch Manager after helping Orion Forms, to wriggfb out
fee situation had disowned the entries in fee LCCR. No
doubt, the petitioner has altered fee LCCR or prepared
supplementary LCCR but only at the instance of the
superiors. The witnesses examined in die enquiry were
’ tutored by the Management to give evidence against the
petitioner. The petitioner being sealed in fee first floor had
no access the instrument. Further, the Branch Manager
had recovered all fee money from fee customer M/s Orion
Forms alongwith interest, therefore, there was no substance
in fee allegation feat fee petitioner had caused loss to fee
Respondent Bank.The 2nd charge in the enquiry that in
the O.D. and in fee S. B. Account of the petitioner, there
was transaction, disproportionate to his income is also
without any substance. All fee transactions of the petitioner
were through hisO.D. A/c. The petitioner had been making
repayment of all loans. AH fee loans were within fee means
of fee petitioner and they were not disproportionate wife
hh income s Mugh witness were examined on fee side
of the - ;mcnt, none of the witnesses tendered any
evidence to prove fee charge levelled against die petitioner
W* tie so, the Enquiry officer by presumption and
a5 mnptioti had held that the petitioner guilty of charges
ir a most perverse manner. Further, the Enquiry Officer
had assumed the dual role of being judge-cum-prosecutor,
This indicates he was biased and he was not conducted

1S26 01/06—12

21M

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA:MAY 10, 200K/VAI5AKHA 20,1930

[Part II—Sec 3(ii)]

the eaquiiy fairly and properly. Therefore, the findings of
the Enquiry Officer is perverse, contrary to the evidence
on record and without any legal basis. The Disciplinary
Autiwriiy also in an illegal manner irnposed the punishment
of Compulsory Retirement without reference to the
unblemished past record of the petitioner. As such, it is a
case of no evidence against the petitioner. The Appellate
Authority in a most mechanical manner confirmed the
punishment of Compulsory Retirement without applying
his mind. Anyhow, this Tribunal is having powers to
Interfere with the quantum of punishment under Section-
11A of the I.D. Act and the punishment imposed is grossly
disproportionate to the charges levelled against him and
hence, for all these reasons the petitioner prays to reinstate
him in service, backwages, continuity of service and all
other attendant benefits.

4, As against this, the Respondent in his counter
statement alleged the petitioner herein was worked as a
Clerk at Mowbrays Road Branch, Chennai since 12-11-I98E
and he was placed under suspension w.e.f, 09-07-2002 in
connection with certain misconduct committed by him while
working atthe said branch. On a routine check-up of LCCR
slips with relevant batch ticket no. 129 darted 04-07-2002,
there was a difference of Rs. 20,000 noticed by the branch
authorities. The branch verified the records thoroughly
and after verification they found the discrepancies of LCCR
slips with cheques to Accounts Section, Chennai records.
M/s, Orion Forms, a partnership firm an-* a ::si unit was
dealing with the Mowbrays Road Branch. Chennai, On
perusal of LCDB records, it was giving cheques for huge
sums for discounting and most of the said cheques were
drawn on Syndicate Branch, KK Nagur, Chennai by M/s.
Indian Apparels. The four cheques of Orion Forms were
not presented till 20-07-2002 and upon verification it was
observed that on several days all the cheques lodged in
the clearing waste were not sent for encoding to Accounts
Section, Chennai, Further* one or two cheques pertaining
to M/s. Orion Forms drawn on Syndicate Bank and
discounted on that day were removed after the preparation
of LCCR. The LCCR copies in duplicate meant for Accounts
Section were either altered or a separate LCCR for reduced
amount were prepared and sent to encoding center/
accounts section. On the other hand, the office copies of
LCCR which was used as debit slip for the lot was not
altered nor was their any alteration in the computerized
account-wise summary based on which the LCCR was
prepared. On investigation, it was revealed that all the
alterations in theAccount* Section copies (duplicate) were
done by the petitioner and LCCR for reduced amount were
also prepared by him. The alteration in the LCCR were not
authenticated by any official and the signature in the LCCR
for the reduced amount did not belong to any of the
authorized signatory of the branch. Il was also found that
the cheques so removed, a supplementary LCCR was
prepared by the petitioner and the original LCCR and the

cheques were sent on a subsequent date to the Accounts
Section, Chennai by him presumably after getting the
indication from the party that the cheque could be presented.
Even in the LCCR Staicmcnt and Monthly Reconciliation
Statement which were prepared by the petitioner from
February* 2002, he had made corrections in Monthly
Reconciliation Statements also. Therefore* a charge sheet
was issued to Tiim. Further^ a perusal ofthe petitioner s (X
D, Account 10113 and STL A/c 30020 reveal that huge
operations of high value cheques disproportionate to his
net salary credited to his account were carried out having
dealings with 12 financial institutions. During the course
of interrogation* he was not able to give a convincing reply
for his acts. Thus, by his above actions, he had caused
considerable interest/income loss to the bank and there
was willful damage to the property of the bank and acted
prejudicially to the interests of the Respondent Bank. The
Departmental Enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper
manner in conformity with the principles of natural justice.
The Enquiiy Officer has given his finding after a detailed
analysis and consideration of all relevant materials available
on record and held the petitioner is guilty of charges
levelled against him and the Dijciplinaiy Authority after
following the procedure have imposed the punishment of
Compulsory Retirement. Therefore, the imposition of
punishment is justified. There is no reason to interfere with
the punishment. Purely for the purpose of escaping from
liability* the petitioner has claimed that only under certain
instructions, the number of instruments that were to be
sent for clearing were delayed. It is the petitioner who was
squarely responsible for deliberately altering tjie amounts
mentioned in the LCCR and for withholding the discounted
cheque from being sent for collection with an ulterior motive.
If the petitioner is innocent as claimed by him* there is
absolutely no explanation from him as to what made him to
alter only the original and duplicate of the LCCR without
altering (he office copy knowing full well that the LCCR bar
is in set of three (triplicate). Even assuming that the
petitioner's role is limited, yet the same being one of crucial
nature* he is supposed to have refused alteration or
intimated higher officials of the bank in order to protect the
interests of the bank whenever any such instructions were
said to be received. Thus, the petitioner has been Indulging
in such activities fully knowing the consequences of the
same. It is evident from the records also and from the
evidence of the witnesses that the petitioner would have
removed the concerned discounted cheque after leaving
the branch and prior to reaching tile Abhiraroapuram
Branch. The allegation that the amount was recovered from
the customer is of no answer because the recovery of the
money from the customer is immaterial. The petitioner has
been indulging in tampering of records and was also
responsible for causing delay in realization of the amount
by the bank. The said delay has certainly caused
considerable loss of income/inlerest to the bank. Et it
evident that the salary of the petitioner is in the range of

[Wrir--OT*3(ii)]

wwwn 10 , aoos^nnao, ism

2189

approximately Rs. %200 but FTVs in the range ofRs, 30,000
per month are seen debited in die account It also came to
light thtfdetttageffcigh value cheque of Rs. 1,50,000 has
also been credit to his S.B. Afc. Apart from diet, many
cheques that have been utilized for repayments of all
payment to financi al institutions are noticed every month
in his account The petitioner has been having tram actions/
dealings with 12 financial Institutions. These transaction
clearly shows that the petitioner has been having huge
operations of Ugh value amounts fljlty di sp roportionate
to the net salary credited to his accotmt. Therefore, the
action taken by foe Respondent Bank is folly justified and
legal Accordingly, the order of fop Disciplinary Authority
imposing foe punishment of Compulsory Retirement and

foe order of foe Appellate Authority confirming foe order
of foe Disciplinary Authority are perfectly legal and
justified. Hence, for all these reasons foe Respondent prays
that the claim may be dismissed with costs.

5. As against this, foe petitioner in his rejoinder has
alleged four the Respondent Bank in order to safeguard an
Officer who had been extending the favour and to moke a
scapegoat for foe same had proceeded against the petitioner
and punishment was imposed without any justification.
The petitioner has obeyed foe work under foe instructions
of the Branch Manager and the Officer .who were m foe
helm of affairs. Further, there is no necessity for the
petitioner to alter ICO or prepare supplementary LCCR
as he has nothing to do with any of foe customers. Without
foe knowledge of the Branch Manager or Officers, the
petitioner cannot alter or prepare the LCCR or
supplementary LCCR, The credit entries made in foe
account of the petitioner relate to borrowing made from
financial institutions, therefore, the allegations to the
contrary made in this regard are without any basis or
substance. Hence, he prays an award may be passed in his
favour.

Points fbrdetermination are:

(D Whether the action of the Respondent Manage¬
ment in imposing foe punishment of Compulsory
Retirement upon the petitioner is legal and
justified?

00 To what relief foe petitioner is entitled to?

PotatNo.l

6. The charge alleged against foe petitioner is that
when checking foe Local Clearing and Cash Remittance
(LCCR) slips with relevant Batch Ticket No. 129 dated
04-07-2002, there was & difference ofRs. 20,000 noticed by
foe bank authorities and after verification they came across
with soma discrepancies in the presentation of LCCR slips
with cheques to Accounts Section, Chennai records and
subsequently on perusal of Local Cheque Discounting
records (LCDB), it was found M/s. Orion Forms, a
partnership firm which was dealing with Mowbrays Road
Brandi have given cheques for huge sums for discounting

and most of the said cheques were fonwn on Syndicate
Bank branch, KK Nagar, Chennai by M/l Indian Apparels
and it was timber found that some of foe cheques were not
presented till 20-07-2002, Further verification revealed (hat
on several days all the cheques lodged in the ckaringwaste
were not send for encoding to Accounts Section. One or
two cheques pertaining to M/s Orion Forms drawn on
Syndicate Bank, KK Nagar Branch discounted on that day
were removed star foe preparation of LCCR. ft was farther
found that LCCR copies in duplicate meant for Accounts
Section, Cbeonai were either altered or a separate LCCR for
reduced amount were prepared and sent to Encoding
Center/Accounts Section and it was also found office copy
of the LCCR which was used as debit slip for foe Let was
not altered nbrvras there any alteration in foe computerized
accountwise summary based on which foe LCCR was
prepared. It was found foe alterations in the Accounts
Section copies (duplicate) were done by the petitioner and
the LCCR for foe reduced amounts were also prepared by
turn, At the same time, the alterations in the LCCR were not
authenticated by anybody and further the signature in foe
LCCR for reduced amount do not belong to any authorized
signatories of the branch. For the cheques removed, a
supplementary LCCR was prepared by the petitioner and
the original LCCR and the cheques were sent on a
subsequent day to Accounts Section, Chennai by him
presumably after getting the indication from the party that
foe cheque would be presented. Thus, the petitioner by
his above actions had caused considerable interest/income
loss to the bank and he has willful damage to the property
of the bank and acted prejudicially to the interests of the
Respondent bank. Since the misconduct committed by the
petitioner are serious in nature, a charge sheet was issued
and a Departmental Enquiry was ordered to be conducted
against him. But on behalf of the petitioner, it is contended
it is only the Branch Manager, one Sri Sridharan was the
person who was receiving foe cheques for being discounted
and he alone has received the cheques from Ms. Pooja
Shanmugham, the authorized person of M/s. Orion Forms.
The Manager alone has been doing all kinds of undue
favour to this customer lor quite long period and he has
also supported all these acts and misconduct. The petitioner
who was seated in the first floor has no doubt prepared foe
LCCR bar but he has prepared this based on the particulars
furnished to him and he has also made corresponding
entries in foe LCCR Register. On many occasions, after
preparation of foe LCCR bar and makirq* entry in the, LCCR
Register, instructions were given to him for preparing the
supplementary LCCR bar or for making alteration in the
already prepared LCCR for reduced value and no reasons
was given to the petitioner for preparing such
supplementary LCCR or for reducing the value of the
LCCRs. After its preparation, it was Sent to foe ground
floor for being signed by the concerned Officer and after
being signed by the Officer, they were tagged atongvrith
the cheques and they were put m 3 l ag and placed tttlkk

1190

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 10, 2008/VAISAKHA 2Q> 1930

[PjutU—5ec.3(h)]

iplgeoaholA* AllfaesepioceswiUbea>rapk^ PM.
md immediately thereafter the bag will be taken from the
pigeon hole by the sub-staff for delivery to the
Abhiramapuiam branch for encodings Thus, in the entire
transaction, the role of the petitioner is very limited and no
frtitniment comes to him while preparing the LCCR The
Branch Manager who was the helm of affairs had been
conniving with M/s. Orion Forms and the petitioner had
been made a scapegoat for illegal transaction opening at
the Instance of the Branch Manager. Thus, the Branch
Manager after helping M/s Orion Forms and to wriggle out
the situation had disowned the entries in the LCCfL No
doubt* the petitioner had altered the LCCR or prepared
supplementary LCCR but it was done only at the instance of
his superiors and the petitioner is in no way connected with
any of the transactions of M/$> Orion Forms in Mowbrays
Road branch of the Respondent Bank. It is vehemently
argued on behalf of the petitioner, that the petitioner being
seated in the first floor of the branch had no access to the
instrument nor to the customer and therefore he cannot
remove the cheques as alleged by the Respondent Bank

fr But as against this, it was argued on behalf of the
Respondent, no doubt the petitioner alleged that he has
no access to the instrument because he was placed in the
first Boor but he has not stated before the Vigilance Officials
nor before the Domestic Enquiry as to who actually
intimated him over phone or through messenger to delay
the instruments to be sent for clearing or who gave the bit
paper or who inform him over phone advising alterations
in the LCCR or asking him to send supplementary LCCR It
is clearly established before the Domestic Enquiry that no
such instructions over phone or through a bit paper was
given to the petitioner by any of the Officers or staff
employed in the said branch at the relevant time. Therefore,
it is clearly established that purely for escaping from liability;
the petitioner has alleged that only under certain
instructions from higher officials the number of instruments
that were to be sent for clearing were delayed or the LCCR
were altered or supplementary LCCR were prepared. Since
the petitioner a i’^ed that he has done these alterations by
preparing supplementary LCCR, it is for him to establish
before the domestic enquiry who has given the alleged
Instructions or who has asked him to alter the LCCR entries
but on the other hand, the petitioner has not established
these (acts with any satisfactory evidence. Therefore, the
petitioner alone who was squarely responsible for
deliberately altering the amounts mentioned in the LCCR
and for withholding the discounted cheques from being
sent immediately for collection with an ulterior motive. No
doubt, he had alleged so many tilings against the Branch
Manager and it is also true that the Branch Manager is
responsible for discounting the cheques, on that ground it
cannot be presumed or assumed that be has given the
instructions to the petitioner to alter the LCCR statement
or to prepare a supplementary LCCR. Under such

circumstances* it is the petitioner who has all along
voluntarily and deliberately without any instructions
whatsoever have been making alterations in the LCCR and
has prepared the supplementary LCCR as contended by
the Respondent Bank. Further, if really the petitioner is
innocent as claimed by him, there i$ Absolutely no
explanation from ft mi as to what made him to alter only the
original and duplicate of the LCCR without altering the
office copy knowing fully well that the LCCR barb in set of
three copies. Thus, it fa clearly established fa preparing the
LCCR, the roleofthe petitioner is certainly crucial, fa that,
he is required to prepare LCCR and only be the record
retained by the bank with respect to the cheques which are
sent for clearing. As such to make a alteration in the LCCR
or preparing supplementary LCCRs, after the original
preparation of LCCRs in triplicate and forwarding one copy
of the same to the Accounts Section of the bankalongwith
the cheques sent for clearance is certainly unbecoming of
a responsible clerk whose duty is to simply prepare the
LCCR strictly after the instruments being posted in the
computer/tnachine by the clearing cleric and based on the
computer summary of the JieadwEse details only. While so,
even assuming that the petitioner's role is limited yet the
same being one of a crucial nature, he is supposed to have
either refused to make the alterations or intimated the higher
officials of the bank in order to protect the interests of the
bank whenever any such instructions were said to be
received. But on the contrary, the petitioner has been
continuously altering the LCCR and preparing
supplementary LCCRs which dearly established that there
are absolutely no such instructions were given as alleged
by him. Further, even fa the Departmental Enquiry he has
failed to disclose as to who were the Officers or persons
who gave such instructions. Thus, the petitioner has been
indulged in such activities knowing fully well the
consequence of the same.

7. But oil behalf of the petitioner it was again argued
that the petitioner whose duty ts to prepare the LCCR as
per the instructions and, he has nothing to do with any of
the transactions alleged by the Respondent Bank and in
the Domestic Enquiry there was no evidence of any sort to
the effect that the petitioner removed the instruments which
were discounted for M/s, Orion Forms. The instruments
alongwith the LCCR Bar were fa a bag and placed in the
pigeon hole and the sub-staff Mr. Dayanidhi had clearly
stated in the enquiry that there was no opportunity to
anybody to meddle with the instrument when the same
was in his custody. Neither the Branch Manager nor
Mr. Ramarathinam who had been taking care of the entire
LCCR nor Mr, Dayanidhi who had been carrying the bag
consisting of LCCR and instruments were not questioned
in respect of delay in sending the instrument which had
been discounted for M/s. Orion Fturns On the other hand,
the petitioner who had nothing to do with the delay in
sending the discounted cheques for clearing had been

r*mn-^«TO3(ii)]

W TT WR J qf 10 , MQS/fclW 30, 1930

3191

charge sheeted without any basis and an extreme
punishment of compulsory retirement had been im pos ed
on him. When it is his evidence that the alterations in the
LCCR, preparation of supplementary LCCR and alteration
in the LCCR register were done as per the instruction’s
bom the Branch Manager or the Officer, no action was
taken against the Branch Manager or the Officers. Further,
the weekly LCCR Statement and Monthly Reconciliation
Statement which were prepared by the petitioner have not
been questioned either, by the Branch Manager or by
Ramarathinam. [t is* not questioned because LCCR
alteration and supplementary LCCR were made under their
instructions, therefore, -the allegation that the petitioner
tampered with the LCCR is without any substance and the
Respondent Bank has not proved the allegations with any
satisfactory evidence in the Domestic Enquiry and the
Enquiry Officer has come to the conclusion with
presumption and assumption. Further, it b argued that the
Brandt Manager had recovered all the money from the
customer, M/S Orion Forms alongwith interest and therefore
there was no substance in the allegation that the petitioner
has caused loss to the Respondent Bank. Therefore as
such the petitioner is not in atiy way responsible for the
alterations and the preparation of die supplementary LCCR
or alterations in the LCCR register and therefore die
punishment imposed on the petitioner is illegal.

8, With regard to the second charge. It is further
argued on behalf of the petitioner, even though the
Respondent Bank alleged that in the Overdraft Account
(OD) and the Savings Bank Account ofthe petitioner there
had been transaction disproportionate to his income, in
the Domestic Enquiry the petitioner had produced
document to show that there had been up brisk transaction
disproportionate to his Income. And on 02-01-2002, the
petitioner has taken a loan for Rs. 39,200 from Countrywide
Finance and Rs. 24,500 on 03-01*2002 towards puberty
function of his daughter, it is established that he had
received Rs. 15,000 on 18-01-2002 from his Current Account
and on Q5-03-2002, he had received Rs. 26,000 in his account
which was towards rental advance. The petitioner had
borrowed Rs. 75,141 cm 09-03-2002 and the same was
returned to Mr. Thangamani, the Ek Manager Similarly, on
16-05-2002, he has availed a loan for Rs. 86,602 from
Cholamandalam. Finance for purchase of a car and all these
transactions of the petitioner were done through his OD
Account and the petitioner had been making repayments
of all loans and all the loans were within the means ofthe
petitioner and they were not disproportionate to his income.
It is further argued on behalf of the petitioner that apart
from the salary income the petitioner having received a
rental income of Rs, 7,000 per month and he and his wife
was also earned substantial amount through her cab
services. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention
of die Respondent Bank that he was guilty of the second
charge alleged against him.

9. As agamst this, on behalf of the Respondent it b
contended there is no substance in the contention ofthe
petitioner that he has nothing to do with the removal of the
instrument from the bag. In the Domestic Enquiry, the
Branch Manager, the Officer* and the Peon who were
examined as MW5, MW2 and MW4 clearly stated the
petitioner was entrusted with the work of taking the
instruments/cheques to Abhiramapuram branch chi quite a
few occasions on way to his house for lunch. Further, the
petitioner himself has admitted at the time of interrogation
before the Investigation Officer that on some occasions he
had also taken the instruments to Abhiramapuram branch
on his way to his house for lunch. While tills being the
admitted feet, it is false to allege that there is no scope for
him to remove any of instruments when the petitioner has
admitted that he had made the alterations in thKCCRand
also prepared supplementary LCCR. It is duly die bounden
doty of the petitioner to prove that they were done only on
the instructions of the higher officials, But on the other
hand except the held allegation, he has not established
this feet with any satisfactory evidence. The question of
recovery of the money from the customer is immaterial.
The petitioner who has been indulging in tampering of
records and was also responsible for causing delay in
realization ofthe amount by the, Bank by ensuring that the
discounted cheque is sent for clearance belatedly. Thus,
the said delay has certainly caused considerable loss of
income/interest to the Bank, therefore there is no substance
in the contention of the petitioner that he has not caused
any loss to the Respondent Bank. With regard to hts
transactions disproportionate to his income, it j$ clear and
on perusal of his OD and SB Account that he has received
a net salary in the range of approximately Rs. 2,200 per
month but FTVs in the range of Rs. 30,000 are seen debited
from his account. It is also clear that a high value cheque of
Rs. 1,50,000 has been credited to his SB A/c, that apart
many cheques that have been utilized tor repayments of
card payment of financial institutions every month from
his account. It is also clear that he has transactionAJealings
with about J l financial institutions and these transactions
will dearly show that the petitioner is having huge
operations of high value amounts tolly disproportionate
to the net salary credited to his account without prior
permission or authority. Thus, the petitioner not having
performed his duties properly and having indulged in the
tampering of records, causing delay in, sending the
cheques for clearing has been made responsible for causing
loss/interest to the Bank. Therefore, the action taken against
him fay the Respondent Bank is tolly justified and therefore
the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as claimed by him.

10. On consideration of (he entire evidence in this
case and also the arguments of the J earned counsels of
both sides, r am of the opinion the arguments put forth by
the counsel for the Respondent is well founded. When the
petitioner has admitted that he has made the alteration and

2192

THE GAZETTE QF INDIA: MAY 10, 2008/VaISAKHA 20,1930

[?kxt II— Sec. 3(ii)J

also prepared supplementary LCCR and altered the LCCR
Rugister, therefore, the burden of proving that be has made
these things only on the instructions of the Brandi Manager
or die Officers of the Bank but as I have already stated
except the wild and held statement that he has made these
dungs only on the instructions of the Officers or the higher-
ups, he has not specifically stated who has instructed him
to alter the LCCR bar or to prepare a supplementary LCCR.
or to alter the LCCR Register. Under such circumstances, 1
am of the opinion that only to wriggle out the situation the
petiti on e r has made the allegations that he has made the
at tention and also prepared the supplementary LCCR on
the instructions of the higher officials. Therefore, 1 am not
inclined to accept the contentions of the petitioner that he
was innocent and he has nothing to do with the charges
alleged agJtlfet him. As such, I find this point against the
petitioner.

Point Nik 2

The next point to be decided in this case is to what
relief the petitioner is entitled?

1 L In view of ray foregoing findings that the action’of
the Respondent Management in imposing the punishment
of Compulsory Retirement against the petitioner is legal
and justified, I find the petitioner is not entitled to any
relief

12. Thus , the reference is answered accordingly

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,
rmw fifd and pronounced by me in the open court on this
day foe 26th February, 200E)

K, JAYARAMAK Presiding Officer

Wjfofttges Rxam inedi

For foe I Party/Petitioner None

For the II PartyjManagement None

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner’s side;

EX.No. Date Description

ExWj - LCCR Register Folio

28-02-2002 to 04-07-2002
(E.X.ME3)

ExW2 - LCDB Register, Folios

From30-11-2001 to 21-06-2002
(Ex. DEI)

EX.W3 - Statement of accounts of

M/s Orion Forms from
November2001 to December
2 JWE(ExDE2)

EtW4 - Pass Sheet of M/s Pooja

Shanmugham, SB Ate No.
32407 tiom 01-01-2002to
30-07-2003(ExDE3)

On the Management's side

Ex, No

Date

Description

EX,Ml

18-01-2003

Charge Memo

BlM2

-

Enquiry Proceedings

ExM3

28-11-2003

Lnquiry findings

EXM4

29-11-2003

Letter to l^t Party forward
enquiry findings

Ex,M5

12-01-2004

Proceedings of the personal
hearing given to the 1 st Party

EXM6

14-01-2004

Order of Punishment

ExM7

11-02-2004

Appeal petition preferred by

1 st Party

EX,MS

17-09-2004

Orders of the Appellate
Authority

EX.M9

29-09-2004

Proceedings of the Deputy
General Manager

EjlNIIO

ME1

Batch Ticket

EX.Mll

ME2

LCDB Orient Forms

EX.MI2

ME4&5

Debit slips dotal clearing and
cash remittance slip

E*M|3

MB6

Statement of Account for the
period from 01-11^2003 to

07 11-2003

EXJH14

MET

Outward clearing waste

Ex. MIS

MES

LCCR re-corKtUatktf
statement for February, 2002

EX.M 16

ME9

Report on actuaVsuspected/
attempted frauds {to be
submitted by branches)

ExMl?

MEIO

Letter from Manager
Mowbrays Road branch to
DGM Circle Office, Chennai

ExM18

ME11

Letter from Manager,
Mowbrays Road branch to
DGM Circle Office, Chennai

EX.M19

ME12

Statement of allocation of
work to the staff

EX.M20

ME13

Investigation Report
submitted by Investigation
Officer

w«*3(ii>]

BURR*! <IRH1 *.10, 2008/^119 20,1930

2193

16 949,2008

m.m, 1047.—teftfoff, 19470947
W14) 4® WO 17 ^ NJHtel ^4H4ilT&4l3ft£fLV,'M.

3 ftRid 4faiPn> 3 ^s*IN rwk $toilflte» 3ffiw*<r

CC II) WTO* ^ t9R (tftf TOT 17/2001) ^JWRlrt
te«fl "f, tel ^hO 1 ! *w»rt n*l 16-4-2008 4^ 1TTCI <01

[tf ^I-200I2/397/2000-8|^STO(Tft-I))
“Ptw 9Br rrki, &05 atfaatifl

New Delhi, the 16th April,2008

SLO. 1047'—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the sward (Ref. No. 17/2001)
of (he Central Government Industrial Tribunal ( No. II),
Dhanbad now as shown in Araiexiire in Industrial Dispute
between the employers in relation to the management of
M/8 B.C.C.L.and their worinnan, which was received by
theCadrelGoveniiaatton 16-4-2008.

[Na U20012OT7flOOO-lR(t>OJ

SNEH LATAJAWAS, Desk Officer

AfYffiJOffiE

BEFORE THE tINIHAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL <N02) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT

SbriNagndnt Kumar, Presiding Officer

In the mater of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)
(d) oftfae LDAct, 1947.

Reference No. 17of2001

PARTIES; Employers in relation to the mnmgement

ofM/s. BOCLand their workman.

APPEARANCES

On behalf of the workman: Mr.T_P.Jha, Advocate
On behalf of the employers: Mr, S.N. Sinha, Advocate
State: Jharkhand Industry: QnL

D ban bad, (be 1st April, 2098
AWARD

The Govt oflndte. Ministry ofLabour, in exercise of
the preen conffemed on diem under Section 10 (1) (d) of
the I.D- Ad, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this
Tribunal fr adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/397/
200<HR(C-1) dated, the 25th January,2001.

SCHEDULE ».

“Whether die action of the management of Putki
Collieiy of M/S. BCCL, Dt Dhanbad in not accepting the
date ofbirth of Sri Pundeo Upadhyaya as 10-6-54 asperbis
Mining Sfrdar, Certificate and with reference to LI,No.76 of
JBCCl is justified? If not, to what relief is the workmen
concerned entided?"

2, The case of Che concerned workman as disclosed in the
Written Statement in short is that the management had
permitted concerned vrcutanan following the nofm* of Mmfls
Act, 1 952 toappew in Mining Sirdw Certificate examination
conducted by the D.G.M.S, in the year 1981. He was
declared successful candidates under the provision of
Mines Act, 1952 and Cod Mines Regulation, 1957. The
Director General of Mines Govt, of India issued him a
Sirdarship certificrae which is a Statutory Certificate to hold
thPjMst of Mining Sirdar which indicates his date ofbirth
as 18-7-54. As per requirement of Mining Sirdars and
accepting genuineness of the certificate and its validity
the management conducted a selection test foe Mining
Sirdars and be was declared a fh candidate io die year 1981
and was given work as Mining Sirdar which is a statutory
post It is the further case o£the workman that due to
write™ of entries in different records special ly with regard
to age made in statutory records and certificate the mater
was discussed at National Coal W^ge Board level on
16-1*1981. As per decision Implementation Instruction
No. 37 was issued. With regard to age determination there
was further discussion at Joint Bipartite level in 1988 and
the JBCCl issued further instruction called as J.J.No. 76
giving dean cut guidelines to all the Coal Companies that
Mining Sirdarship, Winding Engine or other statutory
certificates where the Manager had certified die date of
birth wilt be nested as authentic. The concerned workman
was in etnpJoymerrt of dte company since 16-1-73. Ht could
not appear in the Mining $ iitbrship ceitificateexaiijiiiation
without being recommended by tiie Manager of the colliery
and accordingly the provision of 1-1-76 is fully applicable
in his case and the BCCL management has no right to make
any change whatsoever in accordance with the provisions
as contained itt I.I.No. 37 or I.L76. After receipt of I.L76
issued by JBCCl for implementation considering the Muting
Sirdarship certificate as well as statutory certificate, the
BCCL Management issued office Order No. 1 S3 dt, J 3-6-89
informing the candidate that his date of birth as Mining
Sirdarship certificate has been corrected as 10-6*64. Prom
further statement made in the W,S. of die concerned
workman it appears that inspite of the prevision of JBCCl
circular the BCCL management in the Form B Register
changed the date ofbirth which whs communicated vide
Memo. No, [0109 dt 3/J-7-99 is illegal, malafide, unjustified
and motivated. It appears that as per case of the concerned
workman, Shri Pundeo Upadhyaya the date of birth
recorded on the Statutory Mining Sirdarship certificate and
corrected by the local management vide office order

2194

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 10, 2008/VAISAKHA 20, 1930

[Part II— Sec 3(ti)]

dt 13-6-89 in accordance with the provision of U No.76 is
to be treated as final.

3, Management has filed W.S,dtfiyinK all the claims and
allegations made by the concerned workman in his W,5,
The concerned workman was appointed &s Haulage
Operator on 14-6-73 and at the time of employment his age
was recorded in the Form B Register as / ell I.D. Card
Register as February. 1949 in which he has signed as token
of acceptance. He was literate who can read and mite
English. He has not submitted the documentary evidence
in support of his date of birth before the Chairman of the
Board of Mining Examination and recorded his date of birth
as 19-6-54 which is totally false and without any basis.

Durlng the periodftoo 1973 to 1981 he never objected
about recording of date of birth in From B and I.D,Card
After passing Mining Sirdarship Examination he requested
for correction of his date of birth. The matter was put up
before the competent authority and the same was regretted
vide letter dt. 10-12-1999 which was issued by the GM VC
(P A R) T BCCLKoy la Bhawan, So far question of LI. 76 of
JBCCl is concerned it has been mentioned that the age
recorded iu Matriculation Certificate and in Mining
Sirdarship Certificate Ex^nmarton will be accepted who
have parsed before the appointment but not after the
appointment in employment. As per para 37 of the certified
Standing applicable for BCCL that the entry of date of birth
made in service record of the establishment shall be the
sole evidence ofhis in relation to his service including
fixation of the date of hi s ret irement from the service o f the
establishment-

4, In the rejoinder portion the statements made in pate
1,2,3,4 and 5 of the W,S. of the concerned workman it h
said that these are matter of record and anything contrary
are dented. About para-6 it is said that the same is denied
and there is no variation in recording the date of birth.
About para 7 h 8,9 it is said that the concerned workman
entered in his service on 14-6-73 and he pnt his signature
in Form B Register where his date of birth has been
mentioned as February, 1949 and the question to consider
the case under JBCCl 1,1 .No.76 does not arise. The
statement made in para 10 and I! has been denied and it
has been clarified as to how there is no merit in the case of
the concerned workman and prayer has been made to reject
the claim of the concerned workman.

5 + A rejoinder has al&o beeu filed by the concerned
workman, li has been further staled the details as to how
the claim of the concerned workman is justified and he is
entitled for the relief and to pass Award in favour ofthe
concerned workman to correct the date of birth as on
10-6-J4 in the Form ft Rioter.

6, POINTS TO P.fi

"Wfflwtiitr * of the tff ftr tkt y

of M/s BCCL. !X Dhanbad in not accepting ihe date ol

birth of Sri Pundeo Upadhyaya as 10-6-54 as per his Mining
Sirdar, Certificate and with reference to LI.No,76 of JBCCl
is justified? If not, to what relief is the workman conc&ne d
entitled?”

7, Tie concerned workman in support of his claim has
produced himself as WW-1 and another witness Vijay
Shankar Pandey as WW^2 h Onhts behalfExt, W-l certificate
of Mining Sirdarship issued by DGMS t Ext,W-2 letter dt.

13-6-89 issued by the Agent. Putki Collieiy, Ext r W-3 Service
Exceipt, ExLrecord note tif discussion dt 16-11-97,
ExtW-4/1 Implementation o! agreed points of discussion
dt. 16-11-97 and the correction of date of birth by the
Authority of the colliery Ext,W-5 have been brought on
record. On behalf of the management one witness Robert
Lakra has been examined a* MlWd. Copy of From B
Register SI No, 2641 as Ext M-l, date of birth of the
concerned workman in Service Excerpt Exf M-2 d letter
addressed to the ALC [C) by the Project Officer Ext. M-3 ,
letter issued in the name of Dy, Chief P.M, BCCL on
23/24-11-2000 marked as ExkM-4, date of birth recorded as
Feb., 1949 in From B Register as ExtM-5, photograph and
signature ofthe concerned workman marked as Ext. M-5/1
have been brought o, L record.

8, In support ofhis claim the concerned workman during

I he course of his evidence has stated that he passed the
Mining Sirdarship Examination in the year 1981. He
produced Mining Sirdarship Certificate which is Ext W-l
and according to this his date of birth is 10-6-54+ His
appl teat ion for appearing as M irting Sirdar Examination was
forwarded to the IXG.M.5. and the examination was held
by the DGMS. "Hiercafter he got his posting as Miring
S irdar in the month of Sepi en iber n i 981 at Balihtt i Col liery
He submitted application to the management for correction
ofhis date of birth as per date of birth recorded in the
Mining Sirdar Certificute, as 10-6-54 which was corrected.
In the year 1987 management issued a service excerpt where
his date of birth was recorded as 1-2-1949. After this He
submitted representation to die management to correct his
date of birth but the nv^iigemcut refused to correct the
lame. He also submit Led application to the Headquarters
for correction of date of birth as per date of birth recorded
in the Mining Sirdar Certificate. There had been a discussion
on 16-11-97 regarding implementation of agreed points.
The management corrected the dale of birth ofthe Mining
Sirdars of Putki Colliery a* per J E3CC1 circular. The dale of
birth of some Mining Sirdars us per JBCCl was corrected
but it was refused so far ft* the toticernsd workman is
concerned. His claim ^justified. He raised industrial dispute
which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal During
cross-examination he has stated that in the year 1973 he
got his appointment as Pmkr colliery as Haulage operator.
His all particulars including JateoFbinh were recorded in
die From 13 Register. He ihc entries made ar

N&.2641 to From ft ..-i, ] httcte'

■ h *:tein E 919. I Iis p!■■■?.raph -is ,4 ^ *i;_>ned and all■.it

[Tm-a^3(ii)]

BRA *>nr3m: IQ, awsAnWiO, 1930

2195

He lead upto Class VII. It b not a feet that die date of birth
recorded m the Fomi B Register is correct. He has no ai^y
paper except Mining Sirdar Certificate to show that his
date of birth is 10-6-54. He has denied die aiggestion that
he is suppressing the original date of birth and has arranged
to record his date of birth as 10-6-54 in the Mining Sirdar
Certificate. He has flatter stated that for correction of date
of birth recorded in the Form B Register he never raised
any protest till obtaining of Mining Sirdar Certificate.

9. As far as die evidence of WW-1 is concerned it
appean that hb date ofbitth has been recorded as February,
1949 in the Statutory Form B Register. It also appears that
he has put his signature where entries have been made.
From perusal of ExtM-1 as well as ExtM-5 and M-5/1 as
well aa evidence of this concerned workman it appears that
the photograph of the concerned has been pasted in the
Statutory Form B Register. He has put his signature. From
his evidence it also appears that for the first time his date
of birth was recorded as 10-6-54 in the Mining Sirdarship
Certificate and on this basis his dale ofbirth was corrected.
However, It also appears that he was appointed in the year
1973 and he did not raise any objection or take any step for
correction of his date of birth till he passed the Mining
Sirdarship examination in the year 1981. However, on the
basis of entry made in Mining Sirdarship examination an
order was issued regarding his correction of date ofbirth
by the Agent, Putki Colliery on 13-6-89 in terms of
nmplementation Instruction No. 76 of JBCO vide Ext.
W-2. However, later it also appears that a Service Excerpt
on 15-5-87 was issued to the concerned workman in which
there is mention of date of birth as 1-2-1949. In this Service
Excerpt he has written that his date of birth is 16-6-54
(and not 10-6-54) and due to mistake in Form C and 1. D.
Card the date of birth has been mentioned as 1949.
Therefore, the date ofbitth may be corrected It further
appears from bis evidence that he had submitted a
representation regarding change of his date of birth.
However, the management refbsed to correct his date of
birth.

10. From the evidence of WW-2 it appears that at
Putki Colliery the date ofbirth of9 Mining Sirdars were
corrected at per date of birth recorded in Mining
Ceitificate. However, when he has put question by the
Court he has admitted that Form B Register is the Statutory
Register as per Mines Act The particulars including the
dale of birth recorded therein are binding on, both sides.
He has further stated regarding issuance of Service Excerpt
in the year 1987 which was different from the date ofbirth
recorded in Mining Sirdar Certificate. From the evidence of
this witness it appears that in the year 1987 Service Excerpt
was issued in which there was different date ofbirth than
the dale of birth mentioned in the Mining Sirdarship
Certificate. Though he has stated about wrong entry of
date of birth in Service Excerpt hut he had not disclosed

any fect/materfal document on (be basis of which he is
saying that he has knowledge aboia the date of birth of the
concerned workman in any other way other than the date
of birth recorded in Mining Sirdar Certificate. From the
evidence and materials on record it does not appear how
be is aware of date of birth of (he concerned workman
beside the entry mode m Mining Sirdar Certificate.

11. MW-1 who has deposed on behalf of the
management has denied the claim of the concerned
workman. From his evidence it also appears that the
conooned workman raised objection regarding dam ofbirth
after receipt of Service Exempt oo the year 1987. As per
clause 37 (v) of Certified Standing Orders for workman of
EaaWishmeni imder BCCLthe workman should have raised
objection about his dale ofbirth recorded in Form B Register
within 3 months from its recording. The claim of the
concerned workman is not justified. During cross-
examination he has stated about the forwarding of
application for appearance in the Mining Sirdar examination
through the department to the DGMS, He has also stated
that he has no knowledge about the change of date ofbirth
as per date ofbirth recorded in the Mining StrdarCeitfficate.
On recall be has stated about the entries made in relation to
the concerned workman and his signature which are E8t.M-
5 and M-5/1. He has also stated that there b no interpolation
or any mark In the Register, During cross-examination he
has denied the suggestion (hat instead , of recording the
date ofbirth as 10-6-54 wrongly the date ofbirth has been
recorded as February, 1949.

12. Much argument has been advanced on behalf of
the concerned workman that hb date of birth has been
recorded as 10-6-54 in the Mining Sirdar Certificate and hb
application was sent through the management to thd
D.G.M.5. for his appearance in file c\aminatioit Thereafter
his date of birth was corrected in accordance with the
Implementation Instruction No. 76 ofJBCCI by the Agent
Putki Colliery.

13.lt appears that in Mining Sirdar Certificate which
has been issued on 16-10-8 J the date of birth of the
concerned workman has been mentioned as 10-6-1954, This
feet has not been disputed os well aa this also appears
from Ext.

W-3 that the date of appobitmentoftfae concerned workman
was 16-J-73. Thus it appears that this is not the first
occasion regarding (he entry of date of birth in any
statutory document. In the Form B Register which is a
statutory document the date ofbirth has been recorded as
February, 1949. Thb feet has abo not been disputed. In
this statutory Form B Register there is also photograph of
(he concerned workman and there is also signature of the
concerned workman which has been admitted by the
concerned workman. Theree is nothing on the record to
show that the ,:tncerned workman has raised any.
objection/protest between die period of his appointment

1526 Gl/Ofl—13

2196

[Part 11—SEC.3(ii)]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 10, 20QB/VA1SAKHA 2Q T 1930

and appearing at the lime of examination in the year 1981.
Curiously enough nothing has been explained that how
the date of birth 10-6-54 has been mentioned in the
application which routed to the D.G.M.S. through the
management No witness has been examined or no any
material has been brought on record to show the
circumstances as to how the date of birth 10-6-1954 was
mentioned in the Mining Sirdar Certificate. No any other
document has been brought on record to support the date
of birth as IO-6-54oftheconcemed workman. On the other
hand in the Service Excerpt the concerned workman has
himself mentioned thaL his date of birth 16-6-1954 (and not
10-6-1954) and due to mistake in the Form C and inl.DCard
1949 has been mentioned. Thus it appears that the date of
birth February, 1949 of the concerned workman was not
mentioned only in Form B Register rather in many other
statutory register As stated earlier* there is nothing to
- show that the concerned workman had raised any objection
at least before 19SI. On the other hand it appears that the
concerned workman gave representation for its correction
in the year 1987 after he received the Service Excerpt. Jt
further appears vide Ext W-2 that his date of birth was
corrected vide Ref No, EOTD^9/183 dt 13-6-89 as 10-6-54
instead of 1-2-1949 as recorded in the Mining Sirdar
Certificate However, it has been mentioned that this has
been issued with the approval of the Personnel Manager,
Putki Balihari Area, Nothing has been shown that the
Manager* Personnel, PB, Area is the competent authority.
On the other hand from the evidence of the management
witness and Ext.M-4 as mentioned in para-7 the
representation regarding correction of date of birth was
put up before the Competent authority and the same was
rejected vide letter dt, 10-12-99 issued by the General
Manager, Incharge, P & LR,, Koyala Bhawan, Thus it
appears that with regard to the change of date of birth the
competent authority had considered the matter and had
rejected the same in the year I999 r

1 4. Para-3 7 C lausc ( v) of the Certi i fad Standing Order
for the workman of Establishments under BCCL speaks as
follows:—

w The date of birth of a workman, once entered in the
service curd of the establishment shall be the sole
evidence of his age in relation to nil matters pertaining
to his service including fixation oflhe date of his
retirement from the serv ice of ihe estab I i shment. A Ti
formalities regarding recording of date of birth shall
be fmalished within three months oflhe appointment
of a workman . v

15. Nothing has been stated on behalf of the
concerned workman that any dispute/representation was
filed within three months of the appointment of the
canconed workman for correclk>n ofdaleofbirth r However,
it has been argued that his dale of birth should be treated
us 10-6-54 in accordance with Ihe provision contained in
Implementation Instruction No. 76. It has been submitted
on behalf of the management that (his is not applicable in

ihe case of the employee who is already in service.

16, Wh ile going through copy of the Implementation
Instruction No, 76 it appears that clause (A)deals regard ]ng
the matter of determination of age at the time of appointment
while clause (B) relates review/delermination of date of
birth in respect of existing employees. This appears to be
relevant for the purpose of disposal of this case and the
concerned workman has also relied on the provision
contained in this Clause Relevant portion of this Clause B
reads as follows:—

(B) Revtew/detemtination of date of birth in respect
of existing employees.

(1) (a) In the case of the existing employ we Matriculation
Certificate or High Secondary Certificate issued
by the recognised Universities or Board or Middle
Pass Certificate Issued by the Board of Education
and or Department of Public Instruction and admit
cards issued by the aforesaid Bodies should be
treated y* correct provided they were issued by
the said Universitics/Boards/ Institutions prior
to the date of employment,

(i) (b) Simiiariy H Mining Sirdarship, Winding Engine or

similar olhcr statutory Certificates where the
Manager h*d to certifly the dale if birth will he
treated as authentic :

Provided that where both documents mentioned
in (i) fa) and (i) (b) above are available, the date of
birth recorded in (i) (a) wi II be treated as authcnl ic.

(ii) Wherever there is no variation in records, such cases
will not be reopened unless there is a very glaring
and apparent wrong entry brought to the notice of
the Management. The Management after being
satisfied on ihe merit* nfthe case will take appropriate
action for correction through Dclernrination
Committee'Medical lkiard H

17. Much argument has been advanced thal in
accordance with dauM? (I) (b) the date of birth should be
treated as 10-5-54 which has been entered in the Mining
Sirdar Certificate.

IS. In the inuam case as mentioned the date of birth
has beer stated as 30-6-54 in the Mining Sirdarship
examination. It further appears that this date of birth has
been corrected instead of 1-9-49 vide Ext. W-2 by ihe
Personnel Manager, P.B. Area, It has already been
mentioned that it does not appear that the Personnel
ManagerofP.il. Area is the competent authority to decide
the age dispute whereas from ExL.M-4 it appears that ihe
competent authority has rejected the prayer for correction
of date of birth.

19. However, the provision (i) (b) of the
Implementation Instruclion No. 76 shows that Matriculation
certificate will be treated authentic in case Mining Sirdarship
certificate is also available. In the instant case the
Matriculation certificate has not been filed probably due

[Will—OT*R3(ii)]

]0, 2008/^?n®20, 1&3G

2197

to the reason that the concerned workman is not a
Matriculate. However, it farther appears that in case there
is no variation in the record such cases an not reopened
unless there is very glaring and apparent wrong entry
brought to the notice of the management. Thereafter on
satisfaction of the management appropriate act km for
correction through age determination commiltee/taedical
board has to be taken. From perusal of clause C of the said
Implementation Instruction No. 76 shows that in case the
date of birth cannot be determined in accordance with the
procedure mentioned in (B) (]) (a) or (B) < 1) (b) above the
date of birth recorded in the records of the Company viz.
Form B KegisterChLPP. recardsam) LD.Card will be treated
as final. It also appears that in case there is variation in
these records the matter will be referred to the age
determination oommitteehnedical board constituted by the
management for determination of the age,

20. From the evidence and materials available on record it
appears that it is not a case of the concerned workman that
his date of birth recorded in Form fi Register, C.MJVF.
records and l.D.Card there is variation. From plain reading
of the entire provision contained hi the Implementation
Instruction No. 76 it appears that when there is dispute
regarding entry of date ofbirth in different records of the
management then only farther steps regarding age
determination has to be taken by die management and that
too through age determination committechncdical Board
constituted for this purpose. Thus it appears that the entry
regarding date ofbirth made in Mining Sirdarship certificate
is the basis of the review of dale of birth only in a
particular circumstance which is not die case here.

21. To sum up, the following facte have been noticed:—

(1) “ 10-6-1934” date ofbirth has been mentioned
in the Minng Sudar Certificate oflhe concerned workman.
Nothing has been slated or no material has been brought

on record to show «s ro how the date of birth mentioned
regarding the basis of dale ofbirth ns 10-6-1954 of die
workman.

(2) Vide Ext.W-2 dt. 13-6-89 as per office order
the date ofbirth has been corrected as 10-6-54 instead of
1-9-1949 on the basis of Mining Sirdarship Certificate and
farther order has been Issued with the approval of the
Personnel Manager, P.B, Area who does not appear to be
the competent authority. In the services records i.e, in the
Form B Register and in other document and in the Service
Excerpt Ext. W-3 the date ofbirth of the concerned workman
has been mentioned as 1-2-1949. In die Form B Register
ihere is photograph of the concerned workman and he lias
also put his signature at tile time of appointment but no
objection has been raised earlier.

(3) It appear* that competent authority has
rejected for correction of date ofbirth of the concerned
workman during foe year 1999.

(4) As per Implementation Instruction No. 76 the
date ofbirth can be reviewed only when there is variation
in the Form B Register, CMPF and l.D.Card which is not
the care here and that too the matter has to be referred to
age determination committee/Medical Board.

22. One farther point has been raised by the concerned
workman that the date of birth of some other workman has
been corrected on the basis of entry of date ofbirth made
in the Mining Sirdarship Certificate in spite of the fact that
the dale of birth mentioned in the Form B Register was
different. In this context Ext.W-5 has been referred. From
perusal of Ext.W-5 it does not appear what were the other
facts and circumstances on the basis of which such
correction were made. It also does not appear that the case
of those workmen is standing on the same footing, of the
concerned workman. Hence on the basis of Ext.W-5 the
concerned workman cannot be granted relief particularly
in the facts and circumstances mentioned above,

23. Besides the above facts the concerned workman has
raised the dispute and has preyed for correction of date of
birth at the fag end of career after long lapse of time.

24. Ld. Lawyer for the management has filed a number of
decisions report in2001 Lab I.C. page 28, FLR2007 (] 13)
page 105, FLR 2007 (140) page 9426, FLR 2007 (112) page
(14,2001 Labl.C. 1400. FLR2D0S(116) page 673 toshow
that the prayer to correct the date ofbirth cannot be raised
at the fag end of career. From perusal of the aforesaid
judgment of the Hon’ble Courts it appears that at the fag
end of career the prayer to change date ofbirth as recorded
in the service record cannot be allowed. However, in this
particular case the facts and circumstances are different In
the instant ease wrong change of date of birth/correction
of date of birth has been claimed on the basis of entry
made in the Mining Sirdarship Certificate which is a
statutory certificate issued by the D.G.M.S, and also the
date ofbirth was corrected by the Agent, Putlti Colliery in
Ihe year 1989. However, the prayer for change of date of
birth was rejected by the competent authority. In this
particular case the concerned workman had taken stq» for
correction of date of birth on receipt of Service Excerpt So
the facts and circumstances are different in this particular
case but from the derisions referred to above it appears
■bat change of date ofbirth cannot be made at the fag eat
of service career which fa also the case here,

25. In the facts and cirtumstanc ts of the case the concerned
workman fa not entitled to get any relief. Accordingly the
following Award is rendered:—

“ The action of the management of Putfci Coliiety

of M/s. BCCL. Dt. Dhanbad in not accepting the date of

birth of Sri Pundeo Upadhyaya as on 10-6-54 as per his
Mining Sirdar Certificate and with reference te LI. No, 76 of
JBCCI is justified. Consquentty, the concerned workman is
not entitled to get any relief.”

NAGENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

zm

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 10, 2008/VAI SAKHA 20, I93G

[Part J[— Sec. 3£ii>l

kmf p 16 sritrf 2008

w.ot, 104 B.—alteirtiRi 1947 {1947

14) *IRt 17 ^ ^f P HW* fefeEt ^

PlK^ ^R3>R sShdtfrRt ^TfinR^I

(B, II) tRT^ ^ w (#pfwn 30/97) s*lftw

16-4-2008 Wl

[^ t^- 2001 2/15/96-3<m(tft-l)]
^Rfl ^TR, 3jfelfr

New Delhi, the 16th April, 2008

S O, 1048.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act h 1947 (14 of 1947X the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref No. 30/97)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal { No. II).
Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexuro in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the manage¬
ment of M/s. TISC0 and their workmen, which was received
by the Central Government on ]<M-2G08 h

[No.L. 200!2/15/96^IR{01>]
SNEH LATA JAWAS, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL <NO,2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT

SHR1 NAGENDRA KUMAR* Presiding Officer

In the mater of an Industrial Dispute under Section I (HI)
(d^flhel.D.Act, 1947.

Reference No. 30 of 1997

PARTIES 1 Employers in relation to the management

ofDigwadih Colliery of M/s, TlSCOand
their workman.

Appre rentes:

On behalf of the workman: Mr, P.M. Prasad, Advocate
On behalf of the employers: Mr. P. K. Verma, Advocate
State: Jharkhand Industry: Coal.

Dated, Dhanbad, the 4lh April, 2008

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour* in exercise
of the powers conferred on them under Section 10 (J)(d) of
the LD, Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this
Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No, L-20D12/15/
96-[R (C-l) dated, (he 5lh March, 1997.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Digwadih
Colliery of M/s. TISCO in dismissing Shfi Bharat Singh,
Sr, Trammer from service is justified? lfnot, to what relief is
the concerned workman entitled ?"

2. The case of the concerned workman in short is that a
false and vague chargesheet was issued against him. He is
innocent and has been victimised as he was claiming hb
right on transfer from 6/7 Pits Jamadoba Colliery to
Digwadih Colliery, The management did not take into
consideration the explanation of the concerned workman
and did not assign any reason for declaring the same
unsatisfactory. The Enquiry Officer was biased. No fair
and proper enquiry has been held in accordance with the
principle of natural juslicc. The concerned workman was
not given opportunity to cross-examine the management's
witness and to lead evidence in his defence. He had joined
service in the year 1974. He has been dismissed for depriving
of Gratuity* P.F. and ether benefits. Prayer has been made
to reinstate the concerned workman Ln service setting aside
the order of dismissal with continuity of service and ad
back wages and benefits,

3_ On the other hand the management has filed W.S.-
cum-Rejoinder stating therein that the present reference is
nol legally maintainable. The concerned workman while as
Sr. Trammer at 6/7 Pits Colliery in the year 1992 was
transferred (o Digwadih Colliery w.e.f )-6~92. He was issued
letter dt. 28-3-92 for his posting in the Digwadih Colliery
on 1-6-92. He was also released from 6/7 Pits Colliery by
letterdt, 30-5-92, Thereafter he did not report at Digwadih
Colliery on 1-6-92 and continued absenting from his duty
after receipt of letter of released!. 30-5-92. Several directions
were given to him to report to Digwadih Colliery but he
refused to carry out the order of transfer even after his
release from 6/7 Pits Colliery and continued absenting from
his duties without permission and information. Accordingly
management issued a chargesheet dt, 11 -1 -94 under c lauses
19 (J) and 19 (16) of the company's Standing Order for dis¬
obedience of instructions and absenting without
permission and satisfactory cause for more than 10 days.
The concerned workman submitted reply on 1-2-94 which
was found unsatisfactory and enquiry officer was
appointed to conduct a departmental enquiry h Several
notices were sent to the concerned workman to participate
in the enquiry but he did not participate and avoided to

C'iRllr~3re3(iD]

2m

'IRcf'W 4MW 10, MQfc^TOt 20^1 930

receive the letter of enquiry. Notices were also published
tn the newspaper. Finding no other alternative an ex parte
enquiry was held and enquiry report was submitted which
is dt 11-6*94 and the concerned workman was found guilty
of the charges levelled against him. After examination of
the enquiry proceedings and a]] refated document the order
of dismissal was passed against the concerned workman
with effect from 15-6-94. Fair and proper enquiry was held
The consented workman was dismissed from service on
earlier occasion for commission of misconduct under clause
19 (6) of the Company's Standing Older. An industrial
dispute was raised over his dismissal for which there was a
reference to Industrial Tribunal for adjudication beating
No. 101/1981. An Award was passed on 18-6*86 directing
the management to reinstate the concerned workman with
50% back wages as measure of good gesture. The
concerned workman was reinstated offer the award and
50% back wages was paid. The concerned workman
deliberately avoided (o join at Digwadih Collieiy after his
transfer and release from 6/7 Pits collieiy with some ulterior
motive and remained absent for his personal work and has
raised the present dispute after his dismissal with the motive
of canting wages by not doing “>y wk purdy with the
help of litigation.

4. In the rejoinder portion about para 2 it has been
said that the above para 2 of the W,$. of the workmah is
incorrect and denied. About other paras it has been stated
that the same are not fully correct. However, frets have
been disclosed to show that the concerned workman was
dismissed for die misconduct after holding fair and proper
enquiry giving sufficient chances to him to defend him. It
has also been staled that he is not entitled for any relief.

5. A rejoinder by the concerned workman to the
W-S.-cum-rejoinder of the management has been filed. In
this rejoinder para 2,3.4,J ) 6,7 I 8 it has been stated that the
same are not correct and denied- The statement made in
para 10 is ill motivated. Giving further details it has been
prayed dint the Award in favour of the concerned workman
directing the management to reinstate him with full back
wages and consequential benefits may be passed.

6 POINTS TO BE DECIDED

“Whether the action of the management of
Digwadih Colliayqf M£. TISCO in dismissing Sh. Bharat
Sing h, Sr. Trammer from service is justified ? I foot, to what
relief is ihe concerned workman entitled T

FINDING WITH REASONS

7. Before proceeding further it may be mentioned
here that there has been an order on preliminary point m
7-O-20O6 after considering the enquiiy report, evidence and
other materials on record it has been held that the Enquiry
Officer conducted the domestic enquiry fairly, properly

and in accordance with the principle of natural justice
Thereafter the case was fixed for hearing on merit, and
accordingly the same was he*rd on merit,

& Ld, Lawyer for the management has submitted
that once the enquiry proceeding was found fair, proper
this Court has jurisdiction only to consider the quantum of
punishment on the basis of materials available on record in
accordance with the provi sion of Section i \ A of the L D.
Act, 1947, He has further referred a decision reported in
2005 Lab lXL1 9t6 to show diat th is Court has jurisdiction
only to consider the quantum of punishment imposed upon
the concerned workman. He has further submitted that in
the instant case the punishment awarded to the concerned
workman for the misconduct is not harsh and shocking
rather considering his previous conduct also the
punishment awarded ts just and proper He has specifically
submitted that once the concerned workman was
transferred be ought to have joined to his new place of
posting and thereafter should have submitted any
representation, if any, but instead of doing so in ^pile ol
ordertdijectUm of the management he did not join to his
new assignment and remained absent for long time without
any reason or information or permission or justification. Jn
this situation the punishment of dismissal awtirdcd to the
concerned workman is just and proper and in accordance
with the provision of Certified Standing Order ofCompany.

9. On the other hand Ld* Lawyer for the concerned
workman has vehemently submitted that ibe concerned
workman has been victimised os be had approached this
Tribunal on earlier occasion and an Award was passed in
his favuur with an order of reinstatement with 50% back
wages. This has annoyed the management without any
reason he was transferred to another colliery where there
was no requirement. In fact his transfer was made only to
victimise him due to the Award passed tn his favour. Not
only this the concerned workman represented before the
management repeatedly and requested to allow him to his
new assignment but he was not allowed. Not only this a
biased enquiry was held against the concerned workman.
He was not given any opportunity to defend and to lead
evidence in his defence, A perfunctory enquiry was
conducted on the flimsy ground and ultimately he was
dismissed with a view to victimise him. It has been
submitted that in these tacts and circumstances of the case
order of dismissal of the concerned workman may be set
aside with foil back wages and other consequential
benefits.

10. In this case it appears that during the course of
domestic enquiry the concerned workman did not
participate. From enquiry report Ext,hM4 it also appears
that in spite ofhavtng^knowledge of the enquiry proceeding
(he concerned workman did not participate. It appears that
only on one occasion during the course of enquiry on

2200

THE GAZETTE OPJNDIA:MAY 10, 2008/VATSAKKA 20,1930

(PMT It—$EC-3(ii)l

10-9^94 the concerned workman was present but he did not
put hh signature on the enquiry papers and refused to
participate in the proceeding.

IL From order dt. 7-6-2006 it appears that there has been
order on preliminary point regarding fairness and pnoprjpty
of the domestic enquiry. On consideration of the materials
it has been found that the domestic enquiry was fair,
proper and in accordance with the principle of natural justice
and thereafter the case was fixed for hearing argument on
merit

12. In acordance with Section 11A of the 1. D. Act, 1947 in
the present (acts and circumstances of the case the only
question remains for consideration regarding quantum of
punishment to the enquiry has been held fair and proper.
In this connection on behalf of the management a decision
reported in2005 Lab 1C 986 has beeniiled, From perusal of
this decision h appears that once domestic enquiry
conducted against ihe concerned workman was found to
be legal and valid by l abour Court it cannot subsequently
consider whether find jug of the domestic enquiry were
correct or sustainable or not. In such circumstances it can
exercise its jurisdiction under Section 11A of the l,D, Acl p
1947 only to consider whether on charges proved the
punishment awarded was not reasonable or was too harsh,

13_ Much argument has been advanced on behalf of
the concerned workman that the order of dismissal has
been passed only to victimise the concerned workman
and in this sequence he was transferred to another colliery
without any ba?is. This lias happened because earlier an
Award was passed in hi:- favour.

14. From perusal of the record as well as from
submission made on behalf of the parties it appears that in
the year 1986 an Award was passed in favour of the
concerned workman directing the management to re instate
the concerned workman with 50 per cent back wages as he
was dismissed from service. It appears that honouring the
Award of thi$ Tribunal the management has reinstated the
concerned workman alomg with other benefits It will be
relevant to mention it appears that no any Writ application
or Review application was filed by the management and
the concerned workman was reinstated. Since the
concerned workman did not participate during the course
of enquiry there is no materia] on his behalf to shew that
on account ofthe aforesaid Award the management started
to victimise him.

15, The question of victimisation if any has to be
taken into consideration on the basis of the materials
available on the record. From perusal ofthe record as well
as from Ext.M-5/16 it appears that the concerned workman
was transferred to Digw&dih colliery on the ground that
the concerned workman was rendered surplus as Time rated
Trammer at 6/7 Pits Colliery. Ho was. directed to join
DigwadUl Colliery w.e.f. 1 -6-92. However it appears that
the concerned workman did not join to his new assignment

rather he absented without giving any information to the
management or taking any permission. Accordingly he was
asked to explain the matter and he submitted his explanation,
From his explanation Ext.M-2 it appears that he has said
that the transfer order was illegal, without jurisdiction and
in this conned Ion petitions on his behalf dt, 5-5-92,
31-1-93 were filed. It also appears that another
representation was filed on 8-6-92 stating that the matter is
pending regarding illegal transfer. It further appears that
on 26-7-93 a petition was filed regarding pending matter
and he had personally met and made oral request for
solution of the matter. This explanation has been filed which
appears lo have been filed and after the enquiry had started
and chargesheet was submitted to him, Vide Exl.M-5/23 it
appears that the concerned workman had not replied
within the stipulated time at the lime of initiation of
departmental proceeding. The representation was received
by the management on 7-2-94. From perusal of this Ext.
which is dated 28-5-94 wherein it has been stated that the
allegation (against the management} is absolutely incorrect
and he (the concerned workman) has given lame excuse to
explain the gross misconduct committed by him. It further
appears that this reply was forwarded to the Enquiry Officer.
As mentioned earlier the concerned workman did not
participale in the enquiry proceeding. He has not brought
any materials in support of the fact bow his transfer was
illegal and without jurisdiction as stated in his explanation.
It will be further relevant to mention that vide aforesaid Ext.
M-^5/23 it has also been mentioned that the concerned
workman was directed to report for duty to the Dy.
Divisional Manager, Digw adih Colliery. U is also mentioned
that under the circumstances (he question of not allowing
the duty not arise. The concerned workman was once again
advised to report for duty to the Dy. Divisional Manager
without any flirt her delay. I'hrs letter Is dated 28-5-94 and it
appears to have been issued a Hct the enquiiy proceeding
had already started. The concerned workman has submitted
his explanation making allegalion against the management.
It will be relevant to mention that on the basis of materials
available on record it appears the concerned workman did
not report for duty in spile of Issuance of such further
direction.

16- Ld. Lawyer Cor the management has vehemently
submitted tliat the concerned workman was surplus at 6/7
Pits Colliery and accordingly he was transferred to Digwadih
Colliery as per requirement but he deliberately did not join
the duty in spite of repeated direction from the management,
He has also submitted that ihc transfer is the prerogative of
the authorities concerned He has submitted this by a
decision reported in 2005 Supreme Court case L& 5 55.

17, From perusal olthe albresaid judgement It appears
that the transfer is the prerogative of the authorities
concerned. It appears that rhe facts and circumstances of
this case is different than the circumstances mentioned
above. However, it appears that the management has every

[wm— OT*C3(iL)]

’TRfT^T U) r 2008^W 20 P i930

2201

right to transfer its every employee according to
requirement. There is no material on record to suggest
that the concerned workman was transferred to
Digwadih Colliery not as per requirement father to victimise
him on the ground that earlier an Award was passed in his
favour.

1S + It will be relevant to mention that easier an Award
in favour of the concerned workman has been passed in
the year 1986 and it appears the same was implemented by
the management without fijling any Writ Application/
Review petition. Thereafter in the year 1992 the concerned
workman appears to have been transferred as per
requirement in Digwadih Colliery. It is not the case here
that the concerned workman was immediately or after
sometime of the Award in favour of the concerned
workman was transferred with a view to victimise him. The
period of transfer does not indicate in any way that the
transfer has been made only to victimise to the concerned
workman. In this context ExLM + 5/ J 7 shows that six other
employees of 6/7 Pits Colliery were also transferred to
Digwadih Colliery along with the concerned workman and
it b not the case that only this concerned workman was
transferred.

19* It is not a case of habitual absemism. But it
appears to be a case of disobedience of superior officer
and absentism for long period after transfer of (he
concerned workman. In this context it will be relevant to
mention the relevant portion of the Certified Standing Order
of the Company which reads as follows:—

- Clause 19.1

Any employee may be suspended, fined or
dismissed without notice or any compenstion in lieu of
notice ifhe is found to be guilty of misconduct* provided
that suspension without pay, whether as a punishment or
pending an enquiry shall not exceed ten days. The following
shaft denote misconduct

1. Wilful insbordination or disobedience* whether
alone or in combination with another or others, of any
lawful or reasonable order of a superior

Clause 19*16

Continous absence without permission and
without satisfactory cause for more than 10 days.”

20. As mentioned earlier it appears that the
concerned workman did not join to his duty after transfer
and subsequently after initiation of departmental
proceeding he has tried to raise that the transfer is illegal
and without any jurisdiction but there Is nothing to show
that how the transfer is illegal and without jurisdiction. It
appears that such a statement in his explanation/
representation has been brought only to make out a case
for not join ing new place of posting. It is not the matter to
he decided here. Even after such representation/
explanation he has advised to report for duty but once

again he did not join the duty. There is nothing on record
to show thflt the management did not allow him to join the
duty rather the materials and circumstances suggest that
management ha* given direction to join to his new place
of posting. +

21 From the enquiry report Ert.M-4 as weft as from
other exhibits tt appears that the concerned workman did
not participate in the proceeding deliberately and having
fell knowledge about proceeding of the case even be did
not try to bring the material on record in his favour. The
enquiry report and the materials speak that the enquiry
officer had taken all possible pain to procure attendance
and participate of the concerned workman but the
concerned workman did not like to participate in the
proceeding. This also shows that the conduct of the
concerned workman.

22, Ld. Lawyer for the management has submitted
that if the concerned workman had any grievance he
could have raised it before the management after joining
to his new assignment but he absented for a long period
without any information or prior permission from the
management. f£vL-n ho did not join to his new
assignment in tpiii? of the fact that he was advised to
join after initiation of the departmental proceeding
when he submitted his explanation. There appears force
in the submission of the Ld, Lawyer for the management
that the concerned workman could have submitted
representation or approached the management for
redressal of the grievances after joining to his new
assignment but he failed to do so without any basis*

23, In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
case considering the materials available on record and also
considering the submission of Ld r Lawyers for both the
parties it appears that the concerned workman not only
absented continuously without permission or without^
satisfactory cause from rhe date of his transfer to his new
assignment i r e. front 1-6-92 he also disobeyed the
order of the management regarding joining to his
new assignment even after repeated direction without any
basis. The conduct of the concerned workman in not
participating in the enquiry proceeding in spite of
giving all opportunities for the same also shows that he
did not like to cooperate with the management in the
administrative affairs,

24, In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the *
case the concerned workman is not entitled for any relief.
Accordingly the following Award is rendered:—

''The action of the management of Digwadih
Colliery of M/s. TISCO in dismissing Sh. Bharat Singh*
Sr. Trammer from service is justified* Consequently* the
concerned workmen is not entitled to get any relief.”

NAGENDRA KUMAR, PresidfagOffioer

2202

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA* MAY 10, 2QQ8/VAISAK.HA 20, <930

[Part 11—Sec. 3(h))

!5 209S

■^I + OT, 1049 h ™^^T^T^^ atfafipR 1947 (1947
UT 14) ^ (7 ^ aqETT R. &m\

RhTm^s , ^ ^ afo

3^ ^FR? ^ ^T h f^TR 3

^tr ^ ^

TEfTT ^ ^ *t-!6/fc994) ITTfTKI^frtp
# J#hA*I WHt ^1 lti-4-2008 sill

[ti ^-29012^9/1993-^ aWftjO]
ip + n^l ^l, 3rfWt#
New Delhi, the 1 6th April, 200ft

SX). 1049.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publisher the Award (Ref, I D. No. 16/
)994}ofthe Central Goverment Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-II, New Delhi as shown in (he Annejture* in the
industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/e, Haryana Minerals Ltd. , Faridabad
and their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 16-04-2008.

[No. L-29012/1 9{ 1993-[R(M)]
N.S. BORA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COLTRT-IL NEW DELHI

PRESIDING OFFICER: R. N, RAI J D.No.lti/1994
IN THE MATTER. OF:

Sh, Rohtas,

Sfa. 5h, Soban Lai,

ViL&PostKabla,

Tehsil: Nantoul,

Distt: Mahendargarh. .. + Claimant

VERSUS

1, Haryana Minerals Limited,

Farfdat^d (Haryana)..

2, The Chief Mining Engineer,

440* Sector: 21 - A,

Earidabad (Haryana). .., Respondents

AWARD

The Ministry ofLahour by its letter NOhL -29012/19/93IR
(Misc.) CENTRAL GOVERNMENT DT,03-G2-1994 has
referred the following point for adjudication:

The point runs as hereunder-

u Wheiher the action of the management of M/ s.
Haryana Minerals Limited, Faridabad in relation to
terminating the services of Sh. Rchta$, Ex. Bill
Clerk w,e.f, 26-02-1992 is just, fair and legal? Ifnot
to what relief he is entitled and from what date*”

The workman ap pi leant has filed clai m statement, I n
the claim statement it has been stated that the petitioner
was appointed as Security Guard in the Haryana Minerals
Ltd. at Faridabad and had worked against that assignment
torn KMM 939to 14-12- I9S9.

That the work and conduct of the petitioner as
Security Guard was appreciated by the Respondents and
keeping in view the ability and performance of his job, the
petitioner was appointed Bills Clerk by the Respondents
on 15-12-1989 and he worked as Bills clerk upto 25-2-1992
at various places of posting at the Instance of the
respondents.

That during ibis period the work and conduct of the
petitioner was satisfactory. The petitioner during these
periods was not given any adverse remarks to his discredit
and his service record is without any blemish, which would
speak for itself. The respondents also did not find any
wrong petitioner,

That according to the provisions of Industrial
Disputes Act, and employee attains a status of a regular
employee after completing 240 days and the services of
the Petitioner are also governed by the aforesaid Act. ITte
petitioner has completed 240 days service and has thus
achieved the requisite condition for being regularized as
an employee of the Corporation - Respondents.

That the Petitioner had not absented himself from
duties and on the date of inspection of the Flying Squad,
the Petitioner was very well on duty and the Flying Squad
wrongly reported the matter to the department against the
petitioner that the petitioner was absent and some
unauthorized person was working in his place.

That the petitioner was issued a letter dated 6-1-1992
by the Respondent No. 2. The contents of the letter states
That* during the inspection it was observed that HML T s
tokens were issued by the staff of private contractors
whereas the same should have been issued by Shri Shiv
Ram, Security Guard or the bill clerk, Shri Rohrtas thus both
have eschwed from duties and they have committed a gross
mistake being absent from the important Check Post where
cash transactions are made. Shri Rohtas Bill Clerk and Shri
Shiv Ram, Security Guard are required to eKplain their
conduct, within 48 hour* of the receipt of the letter as to
why severe disciplinary action should not be taken against
them* fail ing which manageme at may take action as deemed
fit. Thereafter issuing this memo the petitioner was placed
tinder suspension with immediate effect.

The petitioner submitted his reply before ihe
Respondents on 9th January, 1992. The petitioner has stated
that he was on duty on thru date when Flying Squad made
inspection. He has further slated that when Flying Squad
made inspection. He has further stated that when the Flying
Squad was inspecting the petitioner was preparing bill of
vechile No. HR 29-31 i I, He has further slated in his reply
that according to instructions of Project Manager they
were instructed that whenever a truck loaded with stones
reaches the gate they submit HML h s token and private
contractors token and make entry in the register as out.
Thereafter they submit the HlML’s token to bill clerk and

(TOil_TO3(ti)]

qiaviwn -M io, 200 S/fc?rra 20,1910

2203

cafototen, which ti»blU clerk makes bilL This is the reason
when Flying Squad came HML's token was in the band of
Private contractor and Ibe Flying Squad sited me who is
he. 1 had told than Out be is a private contractor uni when
a loaded unde readies then private contractor receives
HML’s taken end subunit cash taken to them, thereafter
die bill k made, we woe working an die instructions of
Project Manager. Therefore, the allegations made against
me k totally wrong.

Hut die Petitioner was not supplied with die copy
of the report of the Flying Squad by the Enquiry Officer.
Farther, die reportofthe Enquiy Officer was never supplied
to the petitioner before the tennmntion and lastly no
personal hearing was given to the petitioner before
termination order against the petitioner was passed.

It is submitted that the above three conditions are
mandatory. Further die petitioner was prevented from
submitting bis proper defence before the Enquiry Officer
without die copy of the report of Frying Squad. Therefore,
the termination order dated 25-2-i 992 issuedby the
Respondents against die petitioner is wrong, illegal,
arbitrary, mala fide and against the principles of natural
Justice.

The Management has filed written statement. In the
written statement it has been stated that the claim ant/
petitioner was working as daily wager employed as setnl-
stilled mining workman w.e.f. 18-*-19*9 and uospaid daily
wages atthe ratepresmbedby the Control Government for
this category from time to time. He was engaged as skilled
category workman w.e.f. 15-12-1989. At the relevant time
be was unsigned the job of billing clerk at Chek post No. 3
at ibe mining establishment of Lnkkarpur-IT of Haryana
Minerals Ltd. He was required to issue bills and tokens to
the in c o min g and outgoing trucks carrying the road metal
soul masonary stones from the mines.

That on 1-1-1992 the Flying Squad constituted by
the Managfog Director HML consisting of Geologist and
Corporate Mwuger of the answering management, had
carried out surprise checking at die work site of the
petitioner at stone mines Lnkkarpur - Tl, During the
inspection the Flying Squad had observed that the
petitioner, SfariRohtas wasabseutfromthe important check
post Le. Ids duty place and the tokens to be issued by him
were befog issued by the staff of private contractors
whereas the same should have been issued by the S/Gusid
or the Sh. Rahim in absence of the S/Guard.

Thus the petitioner was found negligent in discharge of
his duties because the records of the answering respondent.
-and tokens were misused by the persons of private
contracuas financial loss to the respondent, thus

the petitioner was found negligent in performance of his
duties.

A show-cause notice/including chargesheet was
issued to the daimant/petltiotier vide Ref No. HM-CME/
92/4105 dated 6-1-1992. Since the charges levelled were
serious in nature the services of claimant/petitioner were
suspended with immediate effect After bolding a proper
legal enquiry theservices of the claimant/petitioDer were
terminated vide artier of tenufoatioii dated25-2-1992,

1526 GI/Q8—14

That this Hoa'bk Tribunal Court at New Delhi has
no jurisdiction as the reference has not been sent by the
appropriate Government

That (be claimant/workman k doing service after
termination from the respondent establishment and k
gainfbUy employed,

That the action of the managemeut/respondent
terminating the workman from its establishment due to
serious charges is very much in accordance wtifa law and
principles of natural justice, the claimant/woriunan is
estopped to come be for the Hcu’ble Tribunal by his own
acts, conduct and omissions. That the claim is bad for
non-joinder and tnb-joinder of necessary panics.

That the claimant was enagaged as semi-skilled
workman on the rate of wages prescribed for mining
workman by the Central Government fr o m ti me to time w.e.f
18-8-1989. He was engaged as skilled workmn wx-f.

15-l2-l989indKminingeitahlis)mMQtto
of-these pans are voting a»d.foisicti.rieniiai.-

The clai mant/ workman is trying ^) nrisfoj
Hon'ble Tribunal. He has not crane arid) QiiimhUOT
specifically denied that at the time of foqwcticn by fii it-
Flying Squad the claimant/workmm wasnotpr w ea fi tltk
place of duty Le, Check Post No. 3 of stone minas T riAapor-g,
Faridabad.

The show cause/charge sheet dated 6-L-1993
mentioned in this para was rightly issued to the claimant/
workman as a consequence of his having eschewed from
duty in the circumstances stated hereinabove. As' the
charges were serious so be was placed under suspenskm
and s proper legal enquiry was constituted.

The petitioner was working in collusion with the
persons of private contractors who used to extract and
Lay the mineral from the mines of the answering
management on truck basis. The petitooer absented himsetf
from bis duty place, where tokens were to be issued.
However, the tokens were being issued through the
contracture for his gainful consideration and thus baa been
causing financial fora to tire answering respondent

In view of the misconduct of die petitioner, a proper
enquiry has been conducted and foe charges wnepoved
against the ctaimare/woikmin hence Ibe termination order
has been passed in accordance with kw. ft«further denied
tint tbe petitioner has not been given proper opportunity
to defend himself before the Inquiry Officer.

The services has been bom terminated in accordant*
witit law and natural justice adopting prescribed pmcctfore;
of enquiry and foe order dated 15—26-2-1992 tsttnimteag
the services ofthe clafount/woifcmsin. In vkw ofthe greet
misconduct is just, legal and in accordance with principle
of natural justice.

It Ls submitted that the Management hod filed proper
reply dt 11-5-1992 to the representation of Sbri ftoht ee
petitioner before ALCf C) -cmn-CttKitiatum Officer. If the
Conciliation Officer could have applied his mtod the matter
would have not been referred for adjudication before tins
Hon'ble Tribunal since the action of the management«
just, legal and’acc tiding to the principle of natural justice.

2204

[Pmt H—Sec. 3(ii)i

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 10, 2008/VA1SAKHA 20 t 1930

The report dt, J 7-7-1992 by the Authority was not at all
required for reference to the appropriate Government and
the reprsentation dt 3-3-1992 could not be considered in
view of the submissions made hereinabove. Moreover it
should have been filed at the conciliation stage.

The workman applicant has filed rejoinder. In the
rejoinder the workman has reiterated the averments of his
claim statement and has denied most of the paras of the
written statement. The management has also denied most
of (be paras of the claim statement.

Evidence of both the parties has been filed.

Heard argument from both the sides and perused the
papers on the record.

It was submitted from the side of the workman
that he was engaged as Security Guard cm 10-Oft- 19S9 to
14-12-1989. He was again appointed on 15-12-1989 and he
worked as Bill Cleric up to 25-02-1992 at various places of
posting at the insiaiice of the respondents.

It was further submitted that the management alleged
that he absented himself from duty and on the date of
inspection of flying squad the petitioner was very well on
duty and the flying $quad wrongly reported the matter to
the department against the petitioner that he was un-
aruihorisedly absent and some other person was working
in his place. He was on duty on the date when the flying
squad made inspection. It was wrongly reported that at the
time of the visit of flying squad (he workman was absent.

That the workman was not provided with the report
Of the flying squad by the Inquiry Officer, The report of the
Inquiry Officer was not supplied to him before ihe
termination of his services. Mo personal hearing was given
and he was not permitted to adduce his defence evidence.
The termination order dated 25-0(2-1992 was Illegal, arbitrary,
malafide and against the principles of natural justice.

It was submitted from the side of the management
that during the surprise cheek this workman was found
absent He was not discharging his duties and the tokens
to be issued by him were being issued by the staff of private
contractor. He was found negligent in discharge of his
duties. Tokens were mis-u&ed by the contractor's workmen
and caused financial loss to the respondents. His services
. were terminated after conducting proper and fair inquiry.

The documents regarding inquiry have not been
annexed with the record, ivappears that summary inquiry
was made. The workman was not given opportunity of
personal hearing and he was not given opportunity to
cross-examine the witnesses and to adduce evidence in
defence. Thus, the inquiry is not fair and proper.

It was further submitted from the side of the
management that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction as ihe
respondent are situated in Haryana. The HML is an
undertaking of the Central Government and the CeniraE
Government is the appropriate government. The CeniraE
Government may send any reference to any Tribunal/
Labour Court. The reference has been validly seat to this
Court and (he court has jurisdiction.

It was further submitted from the side of the
management that the Hon'ble Apex Court by judgement
dated 15-05-1992 ordered that the Mechanical Stone Cruscr
in the Faridabad, Ballabhgarh etc. operating at various
places should stop operating w.e.f. 15-08-1992.

In compliance of the orders of (he Hon’bEe Apex
Court, the units were closed in die end of(992 and all the
workmen were found surplus and they were retrenched.
The units in Faridabad ? Ballabhgarh etc. were stopped.

It was further submitted that even if inquiry was
not found fair and proper there is no question of
reinstatement as the units have been closed down in
compliance of ihe directions of the Hon’bte Apex Court,
The workman at best would have worked up to the last of
1992, His services were terminated in February, 1992. He
could have further continued up to December, 1992, so
had he remained in service he would have got £ -10 months
more wages and compensation for his previous 2 - 3 years
services.

From perusal of ilie tecords it transpires 1hat Ihe
principles of natural justice have not been followed during
the inquiry and the inquiry stands vitiated. The unit in
which (he workman working was closed down in the
end of 1992. He could have at best got wages up to 8 - 10
months till his retrenchment at ihe end of 1992 and
retrenchment compensation for 214 years. In the
circumstances there is no question of reinstatement of the
workman even incase flic inquiry is invalid. The workman
is entitled to compensation of Rs. 35,0000 (fts. Thirty Five
Thousand Only) [8-10 month's salary + 15 days wages for
every completed year) and costs of the case.

The reference is replied thus:

The action of the management of M/s. Haryana
Minerals Limited. Faridabad in relation to terminating the
services, of Rohtas, FI\. Bill Clerk w,e f 26-02-1992 is not
absolutely just nor lair nor legal- The workman is entilled
to compensation of Rs.35,000 (Rs. Thirty Five Thousand
only). The managcmcnl should pay him this compensation
amount within two months from the date of the publication
of the award.

The award is given accordingly.

R.TT RA1, Presiding O flic or

16 2008

W.-31F. 1050.—alaiRi*. anfafwt, 1947 (1947

14) ^ W 17 ^ 4f r

ut,% Wiftnt <£ #4® M«m>T

w<sk alii#i* w

Wll # t-2ZJ95) wfmi ^T!Tf 1 ^fj

T1WT ^ 16-4-2008 ^ ure? *111

[*f. tt^i- 2 (J012/125/1994-4^ 3TK(T?0]

H"i. M.+1 “fkl,

Cupril—9i;30t)]

WHTWH. 10 , 2008 /^hflia 20, 1930

2205

Mew Delhi, the 16th April, 2008

S.O. 1050. —Id pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. CJTNo. 22/
95) of the Central Covens cut Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Jaipur as shown indie Arvneaure, in the industrial
dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Udaipur Mineral Development Syndicate
Pvt Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the
Central Government on 16*04-2003,

[No. 1^29012/125/1994-IR.{M)]
N.S. BORA, Desk Officer

■scfho’l F* ret* •eitiiliwttij
^7T If, lfr.3ITf.ftlt 22/1995
^4? «wn, 44 4f ffJWft 44 3tt^?F 4t*(f4

I5ft"29012/125y94-3lli3tlt(1iw> fcWT 19-6-1995
tft ^ life ^ sl 4MH ftfe 4*14144 'SRI NRtflfl
4m ftu, (ira.)

— 1 wiftf

4^ 4ft gw wfaift «ifw?n (44ft), 7443 ;
fN'KH frRgnftz 9lftl,, ftlt14ldl i

1 —sraiftt

410(41-1 ah' ftkw 'duiiw ynrf,

9iftf4ft3ikft: nftf

STOlftf 4 ft ftR ft: 41 4 *flH 4 *M 1

ft* W»lft: 05-05-2008
3(4tft

1. *ino min ^ si *iw(ts nil 3T17T
29012/125/94 t** 19-6-95 ft ftl*4 «tJ*J*ft 4U ftt414
4ft|f4ftq atflii4kfe4ft wofRit:

“Whether the action of the management of UDMS
Pvt Lid, Bhilwara in terminating the services ofShri
Devi Singh from l-l 1-93 is legal and justified? If not,
to what relief (he concerned worker 1$ entitled to?”

2. ft 14M>KIH 4fr 3(kft wi*
4ft*cii4r fttetfe3jhr4ftR4>i44i4ft7igaii i

4^4 ^ atgpit ftfev $ftM*feftiftF gp44 4Rfcr 4n=T

tw Iwwr ftluuwi tci «s**< *8 • ftt44fr brf

ijiiite. ^41 ftig 4ftftui ftRfer l-l 1-93 fel ft

WflVf 4R ^ fawn! W4U if ttU^fttll 4* ¥W ftiis

73141. 481 imftttll 4t(T lytf 47 4ft wigital ttflVdtlQ SRI
Siawti 4fef W viffl RRiR 4 ffttT 44

61^414>tfil414 M+gd ^41 fr 1 *ic4e 3fl«F 4^4 ftf
474 if. 4 ^ ‘31 ft7* 4 Wtuff 4>1 3(k "4 3H#pl 4* 3(1417
4ttrt *lft |f Iftllft «n«R flrfro ^fttfife fclfln* ft 44 47 v

.10-4-72 ft ft* 4J 4 4ft 1980 ft ftt^. 4fl4f4Tl

4nft ftrci ftw 7511 w mgK 1993 4 # ftftt fife

4ilft ft <DW4I ftUKfl ftftfeT 4>T <RflWH4 iJHflM
slwtec fr4R 4*lft ft Wifi ftft ftt 44Ph T4 4Slft ^ 3TJ44
RlftF ^ Wf 41 I ta 4|4 ^ 44 ^ v(Pi*e ^ hncfl 4

'll flm ftg araiftf m j- 10-93 4 6- 10-93 ^ 4 ^

44 ■ftdl 1 14T ftrottl PtaildKM WSi wft 4ftT "4 ^ 1^41 TPIT t

Mw* i-n-93 ad itm. a i te Ri 4fa-t ftRi

fetftfttfea 4 HlftH ^ KFlff 4i| 4*0 ^ 4 f^R 1>7

1^ 191^ 4 1W4 ^ ftw fls^ 44 4w 4f 4tff

ftm W I 3Rn4f SRI PTtff 4& 4niR 1-11-93 4 HRIRf

4i Pi (new 4ft URt 4ft 314^11414ft 4

44Rt ^4 m ^i 4fetr 4^ ^ 4 154 ? w

^ah nrfT ft4i to nffhdi 4 ft tl4ft( Phi Pwfl I4wil4 414

4ft 4»id4i^ ■fiFft.nriptt 4ft 4| 4 thnt4 ift 4 rt HRlPtl 4»l
3H^tT WIRI 4 Otgl-flf ^ IV>« 4 RR 4“
ft4(hf 4ft 4 4 ^pr ft I "JRr 44^44 4iT IftftRR

fufUl ft I

3, sntraf 4ft 4k 4 iftsnte 414 44 r tw 44Ht ftn ^an

fttuft 4441 ftf 9t*ff 4iT 4*l41^454 4?f 41 R?1 , 31t414f44T
4tf tft ^if4(ewi 4H1I t(l 411 Ut*ft 149 ^'ilV-fl 4ni yf4d mm
4R^4rft OTTiintff 30-10-93 4?14n4 4nr turt ^!i ft
41lJ 4iw»i 4F 4^T twlvtn ?lft 4b4 4ftf ft I Tfl4f ft 4441
IbtilU 1041 4Rft ftg ftft$ UI«Hl 44 ftu 4Sf 1<li4T I fS 445R
Hd( Entil ift cRW 4ft 1184 4lft 44 3tftt45fft Rtff ft I

4. 4414^ 4ft ’3fff5rrV)<4it3ff 4ft ftuft 4 4l4t TJpRR 4 ft
nwftg 4^ ««iwc l^ft 4ft ftB*5 Ttl4f ipiun 4ft 3tk4 4ft^
Ultpt Trtf ^ aicT: Rll4» 22-9-2000 4ft 41*ff Wft Rk
4ft ^ 4k writ 4ft 4 4ft[ Wlft'H ft) ftn Rtflf I
aiwi*ftft *ft ipi ftg 4i6t -mifl 3ik4 fttitraFi
ftll Rtff ftlft 4 dH4ft 15nW 14 4 ft 4^ HUH"! 45^ afttlH TR

TRTW I

j, ^ttft^l4!l ft-riti 15-7-2002 ^ ■Jt^ttH M4l4fft 44H
ig 11-10-02 4ft 74 ft 4# *444144ft 11 -10-02 4ft ftll
19-8-04 4ft 9TjpT ^ 3Rf: 4V*KK
M<eK"i 4 ft 4 1 nMi*i >1110 Pitft J lft tkpftft* 4-11-06 4ft
arartf 4ft aft? 4 41 4ft*R 4^r 44 ^ 44 94r®i

14^ 31-1-2007 ^ ftRf 4«T JJHWy VBl T411 44 4^
dltfl ift 3t®w tft Orq-IKN 0 ! IRlf 44ft*W 4 J "34;
44OT 2-3-2007 4ft 4 fTW 414fiFT 4^

TjtfRnpi 4lft 4lft 4 44R4I suft 4ft ^4 Pl4f

^j4444ft4ift^ I 3RRT: f^HMh 1-1-20084ft4941144=1
TJH1^04'^4^'^44^41^4ft44ktT^f^ft't4ft^
■34fi*Rl Rift 4(141 414: K4RVT 29-1-2008 4ft ^-Wl|
ftg 4«t|PM4 4T 7W 4411 ftHRh 29-1-2008 4ft ^44T TStft
^p44 4ft Ml* 23-1-2008 4ft Ttranft^ft 41 tftftiH .1^-44
29-1 -2008 44fkq!r4^T 317ft I ftnftt 29-1-2008 4ft

7J44T til 23-1 —08 4ft *i*J 4 4141 Fl if dsn

4ft 4ftl 3lfktR4 ■ft 29-1-08 4ft WQ 4^T ^ 3(4: 44^

2206

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 10, 2008/VAISAKJHA 20,1930

[Part II—Sec. 3(i<)]

23-2-2000 Wt W TO TO ^ ^ ^JWl

TXtft 411^1"»rt ftpj hM^h 4*k nfil TOI 'R
wn TO t f* 29-1-2008 <i«IHI UI«fT Vf 23-1-2008 *?k
TOI'fl'^k'ift 3TcT: M* 29-1-2008 TOT? ^ ^nff »lrt

Tt '$& w*r wf ksiNt to q urif TOftro sirar $ra:

TORI 3 yi*fi ^ IffeT TOT TO I

6, TO ^ TOT TOT qf'fa f<T f ST^TTH
irofl ni«if ^ ww q^T 3nf t to q ft ararof qfk

TTOT 3n$ $ i firare *|Fhh q*k ®fft ^ a<ji<ii tot $ -sutt:

W faTO ^ "*k TTOT Ul^ff TT MWJfl <*>*,i"l «jt TO fTO4

iff ifatTO i Itorito ^ IqfMn qk*q qtf 11
OTT®r4'snMt otto wf qHf qft ofe'A qftf qt
iqHfqtfqSklJWiqTOqik'lO t^^RTOif
it vRIVaRpTf qi ^sik to qref qik 3mi *k1h f^*s < ftn *n
qUrok to ik q?lf tot to 1 1 arc: tori 'if

uNf qflt qro qi^ q*r oiflwfft qtff t ofe ^ q^ fNtyr qq

OTR “P(R TOR ^ iTO RRH t:

M (*niei 4 wi^ 6 ftl., ^

toto "Bra *fro *& ftfe q*k l-i 1-93

^ TOR I qW i aft i n gffrTfr I MPeff ^ 080 qri 4*

i”

% TOlrf 3IR ftror 3-3-2008 q?k ^ ^TOrPT 3
ftNWI ^iWiT '^TOl TO # ■+>< ±K4»W qJTTORIil^ pTOl^K

'Nil Kl^ I

'felH TORI TPlf, TOIT*ftTl
16 2008

mm. 1051,—afcilPw* feWK aiflrtTOT, 1947 0947
’0*1 14) TOT 17 ^ '*tjw. u i ^f, TOR
Phih -iq^'iikd ftrst^ in fa. ^ pw # trs
jfe 444* ^4s+>i0 ^ ^ PiR*d aferitfro 1*raR

^N^towr sJhartro 3rflRiT<n/9R Riron TOigr ^ tot
( iW Wvii ill 3Rli zf _ 0S/%) H!l Wlftlif liR®

TO*R 16-4-2008 ^ WT^ait m

[^ ^-29012/65/1995-3^ STRCRq) ]
Tfl i^tt. ^kn, 3 tT^tS

>Jew Delhi, the 16th April, 200&

S.O, 1051-—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act* 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref + No. C1T 5/
96) of ibe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Jaipur as shown m the Annexure, in the
industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Udaipur Mineral Dvelopment Syndicate
Pvt Ltd. and their workmen* which was received by the
CeniraJ Government on 16-4-2008.

[No Lr29012/65/1995-lR(M)]
N. S. BORA, Desk Officer

■#^hr sftykPi* -ymifWui,

^1T #,3(TltA 5/19W

WlfiMs w4*K, 4FT TOcRT, f^ft 5R1^7T TOfar
T^-29012/65/95-3Tli3TR Cftl^) 14TO30-H996
,9ft ifeT ^ $ft iTMflHIiH flTIS 5RT TOfeT OTT TO^I
TOf^rrwIti^i (TR.)

^ nw <Ti|*i , wO CTOlf),

’f'TTOT , tTO’rifH UT.iH., *(1(14141 I

-WRTEfl

d*4»UA

TTkrofei wftrarfk: wk Tfom tort nuf,

aRl'ff sfe ^1: ifk ^Ph tottoi

awrf: 03-03-2000

1. *lRff swh ^ ITR h'hicth ^fk 3TR1 TFRIR

29012/125/94 feTO 19-6-95 ^ 1<W W

3Tft1¥fq fes W TOR |3TT t:

'‘TOIRTO, fiRTH i«l<844d TT. 1h. f

^ ski i-i^t ^ ^k *ii'{lnin ^

ftii 1 * 1-4-92 ^ ch* 1 661 iS <k(ii isf ^HT

T^of ^ i 7 ^ ^ cik srfro fror tot -^i arfrorik

t?"

2, I^TO 25-5-94 ^ fclRT 23-1-2007 TO TOT^T

TH®ff ^ri^i ^*k ni*il<n ^ TOFTT TST I 3Un*ff ^*k 3Tkr

^ ^k flKI JMiwfTT ^TT 3TFtfTOT3Tf

t I TORT ^ ^,814. 31 -1-2007 4 T®I

TO, ^(T ^ St TTtTOTOI wl

5TFI TO ^T ^T TOk TT*T*T TOT, TORT 2-3-2007 ^
^tq JJHNIJTI TOT TO I fTTO 2-3-2007 ^
arfTOit ^ 3TTOT71 m ^ ^ Tjprogn tot qeT
^m; 30-3-07, 9-4-07, 14-5-07 *k TORI TFTOJTT
r-,^ t=ri<n TOT TO T^T "TO 1 ! ^ TTlMf ^1IJIRT

’9Tl(f wjJ*in ’fl r ’^ B T gnWjJl] ^FTT ^3TT I

■faTO 22-5-07 ^ TORT ^*T TOT TO rikf4*1 ^ET

^ar -Rk toiT ii ^ ^ qspNi^k

i fe: ttmT ^k ^ ^rfer wfk 1^^29-1-2008
^ tort ^sqiriiT qr ^k toi to to 29-1-OS ^k

’Ej^rr qitff ^fTOr ^ qrk 23 - 1-2008 qkk ?k ^qik *kk

^flR 29 _ T - TOOK 4Tt ^314i HWf 4>l ®ik kt

^ ■iHfRTd 3TFTT I TORI 23-2-2008 ^T TOT TOT,
qlfTO qrk ^rfr ttTtt 29-1-2008 w TOT q^F ff *ft.

[6P11I—6TO3(ii)]

10, 2008/ft3HV 20,1930

2207

•ft 696*6 % jii<# ^ 4tfl $ «ftir M

6% I23-2-2008 6fl 'flordlh atfttelft mflOH 4 I
2-2-2008 » l %few frqft'tf aijtlrc 29-1-2008 6ft ^661

Wff 6% 23-1-200B 6% 6161 ’flft tft *R1: Rpfl 6% ^611
ftNi bri ’’ph t?4 1-3-2008 6% y*H*i Pi<jh Pt>*«i ’■rat i
1-3-2006 6ft 4 Britf 6ft 9(tl ^ 6%^ 43^6(1 6^1 3H6F 616;
6# 63 }f> 6*^ ft**l[ 661 1 dUltelT ift fkl'M 63NI

64ftel(l % I

3. nix' 1 ) 4f ’’ft? 661 I 1996

ft14H 64 fl4* 01*11*1 'ftftt"65Rli <81 '44flb vfl ^4165T^
tpF Jiftt hhkii tfLanft. d. ITOP’T’tf. 22/95 *ft cifta ffl
TJrtff *|jWi6ft 3%? ?f ^ ft7T £34 Pt>-g s«4 a'rfi SfftT *nff
ITO*ft'3 , RRl'ftTII*ff6ft29-l-20O86ftTj6 i llf^Wr
23-1-2008 6 ftlF 67 i aft #86 29-1-2008 ^ W#
3ik ^ »H * q R«M rtfff -arrort 6 tft i

afc it 6ftJ ooh ftn b<! ftift % ararff 6ft aft? %

4414 %4T fftift Blft 6ft 4Wg44»4f4ftf *fr I

4. 66 16616 4l %6T6*8 444*) "fal 4*% 63
BK Rl%f ’JPriH 6141 P+*i Ml41 *f*HH 6ft 3k^6 4>.4*l$
6# to$306ftt6S| WH%4 aft?’ 5 lftt4ilftBrerftjl^
*1 «6 Tfe 5TCB ifwff *1684^4 *%l4»Kftl%*iNBtffft
dftl 116)4*1 ■% 'PlR 4Wli '({ftfl fain BIHl ft :

"6664*, B^UgT f*H«1 ft£t& HL fk, ‘

4 ott 36^ *Pw flft ft* 33 tft BMten* br 6ft
frlMi 1-4-92 ft 44% 665/ 6ft #6 *^RW Bftf 1ft4T BHT
dfafl ^%4 "ft ? Rteft *lf 686 61% 63 4lftl43& 6ff ft?"

7. oorf 616 %66 3—3—2008 6%^ •4I4IWI ft
felW4l 4I4H (J'lW >KH “ft ^61 1U4 iK^ IHilVHI^ pNH^JUK

%616lft I -

H617T TPlf,

M 16 *ft*r, 2008

m« 10 S 2 .—4lhlPn« km 1947 (1947

6*1 M) ^ 610 17 4tJ4U6 %, 4*%4 W6*K 6»l«6*l(ll
^ 6661T6 ^ 1T66* f6%Nwf i»*rfi w>4w>nT 6*
%l6, 4%IPW* l%6Rft 6^6 646.K

6PWR6/66 -6'4K14,6^OTmt ^ , ^6IZ (^6^82699)
6*1 IHillftlO 6i0(l ft, 6i ^4^4 4K61U 4*1 16-4-2008 ^*1 m'fl
f6ff61l

D4 ^1-4001204W-6% ancA^)]
646^3lt F ft66;3lf663ft
N«w Delhi, Om 16thApdl,2008
$.0. 1052 .—Id purs mince of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref, No. 26/99)
Of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labotr
Court, Kolkata aa shown in tbeAiuwxure, in the industrial
dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Kolknta. Telephones and their workmen,
which was received by the Central Government on
164-2008.

[No. L40012/24W-IR (DU)]
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE

CEffTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
ATKOLKATA
Reference No. 26 of 1999

Parties; Employers in relation to the management of
Kolkata Telephones, Kolkata

And

Their Workman
Present: Mr. Justice C. P. Mlshia

—Presiding Officer

Appeanm:

On behalf of tiie Mr. T, Chowdhury, Advocate

Management

On behalf of the Mr. K. Chattetjee, Advocate

Worianao

Dated: 27th Match, 2008 Industry : Telephones

AWARD

By Order No. L-400l2/24/99/IR(DU) dated 21-7-1999
the Government oflndia. Ministry of Labour in exercbe of
its powers under Section 10( 1 Xd) and (2A) referred ihe
following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication;

“Whether the action of the Chief General Manager,
Kotkata Telephones Kolkala in retrenching Sh. Brojo
Kishore Behan, Casual Labour is legal and justified? If
not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

2 . When the case is colled out today none appears
for the workman, nor any step is taken on his behalf to
proceed with the matter. Learned Advocate for the
management, however, is present sod has staled feat name'
is appearing pn behalf of the workman since bog nor any
step is taken by him so that die matter can be proceed
further and so it is clear that the workman is no longer
interested in the matter, He accordingly has proyed that an
appropriate order,may be passed for matter.

3. On a perusal of die record it appears feat the no
one is appearing on behalf of the workman since 22-1-2007
in spite of notice, nor any step is also taken on his behalf
so that the matter can proceed further. It is accordingly
clear that the workman is no longer interested in the present
matter under reference. In such view, of die matter, this
Tribunal has no other alternative but to dispose of die
present reference by a “No Dispute ” Award.

4. A * No Dispute” Award is accordingly passed
and the present reference is disposed of.

C. P. MISHRA, PresidingCflncer

Dated, Kolkala,
fee 27th March, 2008

2209

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA; MAY 10, 2O0&/VAJSAKHA 20, 1930

[Part 11—Snc.3(ii)j

3^ [srcil, 16 2008

1053.“—Eta'll* w ftWK 1947 (1947

in 14) W*T 17 ^ -aiwi 54^1^

jjlli'i ^ ^ fi^•allt <n<ti ^

sfWlpRilfeRR'^ +H4>K ifliiiPi*
aflftffiWWT -4KIM4 * 11 , 4“5lMS "9> TTS41

853/2005} ^ t, ^ tlt+U ^T

10-4-2008 ^ TIM 1311 *01

[TL T^f-42012/222/90-3«£ 31TC ) }
3Rn 4j*rrc, ^+*t>

New Delhi, ihc 16th April, 2008

S.O. 1053.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of I947) h the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 855/
2005 of Ihe Cent. Govt. Indus, Tribunal-cum Labour Court
No-ll, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the
industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Equine Breeding Stud and the it workman,
received by the Central Government on IE-04-200S.

[No, L42012/222/90-1R (DU)]
A JAY KUMAR. Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TTUBUNALtCUIVI LABOUR COUKT-H SECTOR 1 «A
CHANDIGARH

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRIKULD1P SFNGH

CASE ED. NO: 855/2K5
Registered on: 9-9-2005
Date of Decision: 4-4-2008

Manjcct Singh S/o Inder Singh
r/o V0L Piran Wall* P.O.NyoU Kalan,

Distt Hissar. —PPTTHONER

y&rsus

The Commandant, Equine Breeding Stud, Hissar.

—RESPONDENT

APPEARANCE

For the Workman Mr, Raj Kaushik, Advocate

For the Management Mr. K.K.Thakur, Advocate
AWARD

Workman is not present. Management appears
through counsel. Mr. Raj Kausbik, Advocate, who had
been appearing for the workman till now states that as per
his information the workman has died and his legal
representative have not approached him* despite his best
efforts* to get them substituted for the deceased workman.
The record of the file also shows that the workman appeared
in foe case in person only on 21 st of Dec, 2006 and in this
between lie did not appear in person and his counsel

represenied him. Now when foe counsel, engaged by him,
has reported his demise. ho I noses the authority to
represent him. The Legal representatives of the deceased
have not approached The Tribunal to get themselves
substituted for him. Who knows whether the workman has
left behind any L.R or nm. in this situation the reference
cannot be left like that and has lo be answered.

Government of India. Ministry Labour, vide their
Older No: L-420 ] 2: ; 2229li-lRi D V) dated 3/30lhofDx., ] 996
referred the following dispute for the adjudication of the
Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh which was transferred to
this Tribunal and was regime red on 9-9-2005:

u Whether the uchvnie* of the Equine Breeding
5tud n HEssar, coi lsH-ulo to be that of an industry
under Li ic ID Act ;md if su whether the action of
the Maiiagrmeni of Equine Breeding Stud Hissav
in terminating the services ofShn Manjeet Singlf
S/o Shri Judei' Sineh T daily rated worker is just,
fair and Segal nni whether the action of the
Munagcmvni of L-.t,n ine Breeding Stud, Hissar in
deny ini 1 equnl 'Arises for equal work to the
workman is ju^L and fair? IJ'iiuf, to what re lief the
workman concerned isenticled coT*

On getting lbe notice the parties appeared through
tlieir representative and counsels and filed foelr pleadings
in lhe shape of statement of claim, the written statement,
rejoinder and supported ihc ;.aine with the affidavits of the
persons they wished to ermine as their witnesses in the
cas^ However* the record of die flits shows Uial the parties
have not produced all their evidence. The workman was
leading the evidence and now he is stated to have died, lie
got his statement recorded, bin he warned to produce more
evidence. The reference has to be answered on the basis
of evidence available on record.

The claim of Lhc workman, is that the Management
farm is an Industry as defined by the Industrial Dispute
Act, 1947 5 iiicc the sum l* i s bei ng run in a systematic manner
for the production of higher quality of horses for the Army.
The workman was engaged as die wki darby a verbal order
in the year] 935 and he continuously worked for them till
February, 1990 and each year ho performed duty Tor more
than 240 day's, but he w;is nor paid lhe Minimum wages as
were paid to the workers in oilier farms at Hissar, The
workman along with eo-workers raised a combined claim
for Minimum wages to the Management in March, 199D.
The Management instead of giving Minimum wages
disengaged all the work men who had raised Ihc claim by a
verba! order dated 8 th of March. 1990, in violation of law
and rules. The Management later on granted mi turn urn
wages to foe workers when they put up their claim For that
before the authorities. The Management further violated
the law and rules by not preparing the lists of workers
before disengaging them, by following the principle of first
come Iasi £ 0 , According to the workman, his tern [nation

[NFril-***3(ii)3

2209

W t ^ 10, 2008/4ws 20, 1930

from services is bad in law, therefore, (he seme is required
to be quashed and the workman should be treated in service
and be also given regularization in service and grade under
rules.

The management kas opposed the claim of the
workman by raising a number of preliminary objections
and also by denying die claim of the workman on merits. It
is claimed by them that (be Management being performing
Sovereign functions is not an industry. It is further claimed
by them that the workman was engaged as daily labour as
per the requirement of the farm and in accordance with the
standing orders. The labour used to be informed a day
earlier whether their services would be required on the next
day. They denied that the workman had served the
Management for 240 days each year. They have further
denied that the services of the workman were disengaged
due to malice or for the reasons that he had raised the claim
of Minimum Wages, As per the practice whosoever was
present in the morning was engaged for the day and there
was no question of engaging some one else in place of the
workman. They further denied die ebun of the workman for
regularization in service or for giving him regular grade.

In support of his claim die workman appeared as
witness and proved his affidavit exhibit WWl and relied
upon documents marked as WWl to WWLTO' In cress-
examination be admitted that he has lost the Identity card
issued to him. He claimed that he was getting rupees 23/-
as wages per day and was paid for the days/he had worked
for the Management and that he was disengaged on the
8th of March, 1990. Barring this statement of the workman,
there is no evidence produced by him to show that he had
worked fin-(be Management from March, 1985 to 1990 ;and
tfarhc had worked for 240 days each year or at least during
12 months preceding the date of termination of his services.
The record produced by the Management though is only
Photo copies'of the documents and the same not proved
since the Management was yet to enter upon their evidence
when the workman died, prims facie go against die workman.
If we count the days he saved twelve months before the
date ofhis termination in March, 1990, he is shown to have
served for 166 days as per the record produced by the
Management. Against this record the workman has
produced nothing and Providence has also no; given him
the opportunity (o lead more evidence. The position has to
be taken as it is. On record there is no evidence to show
that the Management had violated the previsions of Law
while terminating tbe services of the workman. Since the
workman has failed to show that he had served the
.Management for 240 days in twelve months preceding the
date of termination of his services, therefore, he is not
entitled to the benefit of section 25-F of the Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947. The workman has further tailed to prove
that he was not given equal wages for equal work. Similarly
the workman bas failed to produce any evidence that the
Management is an industry.

In view of the discussion made above 1 am of the
opinion that the workman has failed to show that the
Management had violated the provisions of Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947 in terminating his services, in not paying
him equal wages for equal work. He is, therefore, entitled to
no relief. The reference is answered against him and the
award is passed.

Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate
government for necessary action and the file be consigned
to records after due completion.

KULDIPSINGH, PresidingOfficer

^ 16 3fT^, 2008

■sr.am 1054.—Gwn atfaPraq, 1947 (1947

^ 14 ) ^ qnr n ^

firitrr T3E ^ TflftRR ^ sffc ^

afottro fam* 3 mm ailiftfw

srfiPEpiT m 2 , 4 u it j r<s it to (*M too

85&20Q5) qri y+iftid t, ^ wt^it ^

16-4-2003 etfl

E*. TST-42fll2/208/90-aai$ 3|R 0^) ]
srro flgfirc, arfifiifl
New Delhi, the 16th April, 2008

S.O. 1054,—In pursuance of Section J 7 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 858/
2005 of the Cent Govt, Indus. Tribunal-cmtt-Labour Court
No-2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the
industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Equine Breeding Stud arid their workmen,
which was received by the Central Government on
16-04-2008.

[No. L420L2/208W-IR(DU)]
A)AY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRJBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT-11, SECTOR ISA
CHANDIGARH

PRESIDING OFFICER;

SHRI KULDIPSINGH
CASE J.D. NO: 858/2K5
Registered on : 9-9-2005
" Date of Decision: 4-4-2008

Balbir Singh S/o Sher Singh C/O The President, Dtstt..
Agriculture Workers Union, Gali No. 5, House No 123,
Jawahar Nagar,Hissar, —Petitoner

yersvs

The Commandant, Equine Breeding Stud, Hissar.

Respondent

2210

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 10, 2MBi'VAISAKHA 20, 1930

[Part II—Sec. 3<iiJ]

APPEARANCE

For the Workman Mr. Raj Knushik, Advocate

For the Management Mr. K.K.Thakur T Advocate
AWARD

Workman is not present Management appears
through counsel. Mr. Raj Kaushik. Advocate, who had
been appearing for the workman till now states that as per
his information the workman has died and his legal
representative have not approached him, despite his best
efforts, to get them substituted for the deceased workman.
The record of the file also shows that the workman appeared
in the case in person only on 21st of Dec, 2006 and in this
between he did not appear in person and his counsel
represestted him. Now when the counsel, engaged by him,
has reported tus demise* he looses the authority to
represent him. The Legal representatives of the deceased
have not approached the Tribunal to get themselves
substituted for him. Who knows whether the workman has
left behind any LR or not. In this situation the reference
cannot be left like that and has to be answered.

Government oflndia, Ministry of Labour, vide their
OrderNo. L 42012/20S/9(MR(D1J) dated 3/30th of Dec, 1996
referred the following dispute for the adjudication of the
Industrial Tribunal* Chandigarh which was transferred to
this Tribunal and was registered on 9-9-2005:

“Whether the activities of the Equine Breeding
Stud, Hissar* constitute to be that of an industry
under the ID Act and if so whether the action of
the Management of Equine Breeding Stud, Hissar
in terminating the services of Shri Balbir Singh
S/o Shri Sher Singh P daily rated worker is just, fair
and legal and whether the action of the
Management of Equine Breeding Stud, Hissar in
denying equal wages for equal work to the
workman is just and fair? If not, to what reliefthe
workman concerned is entitled to?”

On getting the notice the parties appeared through
their representative and counsels and filed their pleadings
in the shape of statement of claim, the written statement,
rejoinder and supported the same with the affidavits of the
persons they wished to examine as their witnesses in the
case. However, the record of the ftle shows that the parties
have not produced all their evidence. The workman was
leading the evidence and now he is stated to have died. He
gothis statement recorded, but he wanted to produce more
evidence. The reference has to be answered on the basis
of evidence available on record.

The claim of the workman is that the Management
farm is an industry as defined by the Industrial Dispute
Act, 1947 since the same is being run in a systematic manner
for the production of higher quality of horaes for the Army.

The workman was engaged as Beldar by a verbal
order on 1st of Manch T l987 and he continuously worked

for them till 6th of March* 1990 and each year he performed
duty for more than 240 days, but he was not paid the
Minimum wages as were paid to the workers in other farms
at Hissar. The workman along with co-workers raised a
combined claim for Minimum wages to the Management in
March, 1990. The Management instead of giving Minimum
wages disengaged all the workmen who bad raised the
claim by a verbal order dated 8th of March, 1990* in violation
of law and rules. The Management later on granted minimum
wages to the workers when they put up their claim for that
before the authorities. The Management further violated
the law and rules by not preparing the lists of workers
before disengaging them, by fol lowing the principle of first
come last go. According to the workman^ his termination
from services is bad in law* therefore, the same is required
to be quashed and the workman should be treated In service
and be also given regularization in service and grade under
rules.

The management has opposed the claim of the
workman by raising a number of preliminary objections
and also by denying the claim of the workman on merits, h
is claimed by them that the Management being performing
Sovereign functions is not an industry. It is further claimed
by them that the workman was engaged as daily labour as
per the requirement of the farm and in accordance with the
standing orders. The labour used to be informed a day
earlier whether their services would b* required on the next
day. They denied that the workman had served the
Management for 240 days each year. They have further
denied that the services of the workman were disengaged
due to malice or for the reasons that he had raised the claim
of Minimum Wages. As per the practice whosoever was
present in the morning was engaged for the day and there
was no question of engaging some one else in place of the
workman. They further denied the claim of the workman for
regularization in service or for giving him regular grade.

In support of his claim the workman appeared as
witness and proved his affidavit exhibit WW1 and relied
upon documents marked as WWl to WWl/HL In cross-
examination he admitted that he has lost the Identity Card
and the appointment order issued to hint He claimed that
he was getting Rupees 2V- as wages per day and was
getting work for 25/26 days a month and that he was paid
wages for the days he had worked for the Management;
and that he was disengaged on Eth of March, 1990, Barring
this statement of the workman^ there is no evidence
produced by him to show that he had worked for the
Management from 1st ol March, 1987 to 8th of March,
1990; and that he had worked for 240 days each year Of at
least during 12 months preceding the date of termination
of his services* The record* produced by the Management
though is only Photocopies of the documents proves that
the workman had put in 264 days service when the
Management had terminated. They have nowhere claimed
that the Management had followed the provisions of

[tqnil-«iS300]

2211

WVTTmV 10 , 2008/4*19 20, 1930

Section 25-F offoe industrial Dispute Act, 1947, hereinafter
to be referred to os ‘‘Actf* before the termination of services
of the workman. The Management is bound by their
pleading* and the docume n ts. They cannot go bock from
the stand taken and evidence produced by (hem. What is
left to be exercised was the tight of cross examination of
witness of the Management by die workman who is now
dead. The position has to be taken as it is. In view of (be
law laid down by dm Hon’Me Supreme Court of India In the
case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board
verms A. Rajappa reported as 1978 Lab-LC 778 followed
by mimerow Judgement of foe Apex Court such as Des
Raj versus State of Punjab repotted as (1988) 2 LLJ 149,

- General Muager, Telecom versus Srinivasan Rao, civil
Appeal No 7*45 of1997 decided on Nov. 18,1997, there
remains no doubt to bold that the Management is an
industiy since it was engaged in systematic activity,
organized by co-operation between the employer and the
employee for production of high quality of hones.

In view of foe discussion made above I am of the
opinion that die termination ofservices of the workman by
the Management was in violations of Section 25-F of die
Act, therefore, tbe terminal km was bod in law and is hereby
quashed. The question now comes as to what relief dm
workman Is entitled to. As stated earlier, foe worianau is
dead. From the evidence available on record it is clear that
his engagement was not under due procedure of law,
th er e fo r e, the question of his reinstatement does not arise'
in view of foe dictum ofHonTrfe Supreme Court of India in
foe case of Secretary, State of Karnatka versus Uma Devi
and other* reported as (2006) 4 SCC 1. He is however,
entitled to compensation which in the circumstances of
foe case I assess at rupees fifty thousands. The Manage¬
ment is directed to pay this amount to the Lit* of the
deceased workman within force months from foe date this
award becomes enforceable, foiling which foe LRs shill
also be entitled to interest on the said amount @ 9% P.A.
from the sard dale. The refe re nce » answere d hi these terms.

Let a copy of fob award be sent to the a ppr opria te
government for necessary action and foe file be consigned
to records after due completion.

KULDIP SINGH, Piwiding Officer
16 3|fcr, 2008

W.SR 105R—ate&PHi Rtw 1947 (19+7

qa 14) qft qm i? ^ ^ftq totc jqqanfr

ftliq tw q> gq'Mtfr ^1+ a>tfa>it! q»

tilq, ai^t ff RRn afcilPi* flfdN i| qidflq -Ht+tK <tteilPl4»
2,4«4|qq^tNlE 861/2005) ^

JW»lR(1(l q) 4»*l0q qtf 16-4-2008 qft 9TC1

T&n *ot

[Tt W-420I2/244J90-M SIR Ht.%) ]

New Delhi, foe 16th April,2008

S.0,1055.—bi pursuance of Section 17 of foe
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), foe Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ret No. 861/
2005) of foe Cent. Govt Indus. Tribuul-cun Labour Com
No, 2, Chandigarh as shown in foe Annexurt, in the
industrial dispute between the employers in relation to foe
management of Equine Breeding Stud and their workmen,
which was received by the Central Government on
16-04-2008.

[No. L42012/244tf0-IR (DU)]
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

AM4EXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT INI>USIKIAL TRJBUNALrCUM-
LABOURCOUHT-n, CHANDIGARH
PRESIDING OFFICER:

SHRI KULDIP SINGH
CASE LD.NO: 861/2K5
Registered on:.9-9-2005
Date Of Derisknu 4-4-2008

a

Dal ip Singh S/o Sunder Singh C/o Tbe President, District.
Agriculture Workers Union, Gall No. 5, House No, 123,
JawnharNogat, Hissar. ^

—Petitioner

Vcrsuit

The Commandant, Equine Breeding Stud, Hisw. *

Respondent

APPEARANCE

Forfoe Workman ; Mr. Rjy Kaushik, Advocate

For the Management : Mr. fCIUTtakur, Advocate
AWARD

J Workman is not present. Management appears
through emaBcl. Mr. Raj Kaushik, Advocate, who had
been appearing for foe workman till now states that as per
his information the workman lias died and his legal
representative have not approached him, despite hb best
efforts, to get them substituted fot* the deceased workman.
Tbe record of foe file also shows that foe workman appeared
in the case in person only on 21st of Dec., 2006 and in this
between he did mot appear in person and his counsel
represented him. Now when the counsel, engaged by him,
has reported his demise, he looses the authority to
represent him. Tbe legal representatives of the deceased
have not approached tbe Tribunal to get themselves
substituted for him. Who knows whefoerfoe workman has
left behind any LR or not. In fob situation foe reference
Cannot be left like that and has to be answered.

GovenunrtH of India, Mialtoy of Labour, vide their
Order No. -L4mTM«0-lR<DU)daied BGOfoofDcc. 1996

1526 <31/00—15

2212

[Pa*tIT— Sit. 3{ii)]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 200K/VAISAKHA 20 t 1930

referred the following dispute for the adjudication of the
Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh which was transferred to
this Tribunal and was registered on P-9-2005:

"Whether the activities of the Equine Breeding
Stud, Hissar, constitute to be that of an industry
under the ID Act and if so whether the action of
the Management of Equine Breeding Stud, Hiasar
m terminating the services of ShriDalip Singh s/o
Shri Siuinder Singh, daily rated worker is just, fair
and legal and whether the action of the
Management of Equine Breeding Stud* Hissar in
denying equal wages for equal work to the
workman is just and fair? If not, to what relief the
workman concerned is entitled to?"

On getting the notice the parties appeared through
the? representative and counsels and filed their pleadings
in the shape of statement of claim, the written statement,
rejoinder and supported the same with the affidavits of the
persons they wished to examine as their witnesses in the
cas£r However, the record of the file shows that the parties
have not produced all their evidence. The workman was
lending the evidence and now he is stated to have died. He
gothis statement recorded* but he wanted to produce more
evidence. The reference has to be answered on the basis
of evidence available on record.

The claim of the workman is that the Management
form is an industry as defined by the Industrial Disputes
Act, 19+7 since the same is being run in a systematic manner
for the production of higher quality of horses for the Army,
The workman was engaged.** chowkidar on 3rd of March,
1995 and tie continuously worked for them till 8th of March,
1990 and each year he performed duty for more than 240
days* but he was not paid the Minimum wages as were
paid to the workers in other farms at Hissar + The workman
along with co-workere raised a combined claim for Minimum
wages to the Management in March* ]990. The
Mraagcmttrt instead of giving Jfonmum wages disengaged
all the workmen who had raised the claim by a verbal order
dated 8th of March, 1990, tn violation of law and rules. The
Management later on granted minimum wages to the
workers when they put up (heir claim for that before the
authorities. The Management further violated the law and
rules by not preparing the lists of workers before
disengaging them, by following (he principle of first come
last go. According to the workman* his termination from
services is bad in law, therefore, the same is required to be
quashed and the workman be treated in service and be also
given regularization in service and grade under rules.

The management has opposed the claim of the
workman by raising a number of preliminary objections
and Also by deny ing the claim of the workman on merits, it
fa claimed bythem that the Management being performing
Sovereign* functions is not an industry r It is further claimed
bythem that the workman was engaged ^ daily labour as
per the requirement of the farm and in accordance with the

standing orders. The labour used to be informed a day
earl ier whether their serv ices would be requi red on the ne*t
day. They denied thal the workman had served the
Management for 240 days each year. They have further
denied that the services of the workman were disengaged
due to malice or For the reasons that he had raised the claim
of Minimum Wages, As per the practice whosoever was
present in the morning was engaged for the day and there
was no question of engaging someone else in place of the
workman. They farther denied (he claim of the workman tor
regularization in serv ice or for giving h im regu lar grade.

In support of his claim the workman appeared as
witness and proved bis affidavit exhibit WWI. [n cross-
examination he admitted that he has lost (he identity card
issued to him. He claimed that he was getting rupees 23/-
as wages per day and was getting work for 20 to 24 days a
month. Barring tins statement of the workman* there is no
evidence produced by him to show that he had worked for
Management from March* 1985 to 1990 and that he had
worked for 240 days each year or at least during 12 months
preceding the date of termination of his services- The
record produced by the Management though is only Photo
copies of the documents and the same not proved since
the Management was yet to enter upon their evidence when
the workman died, prima facie go against the workman. If
we count the days he served twelve months before the
date ofhis termination in March, 1990* he tg shown to have
served for 180 days as per the record produced by the
Management Against this record the workman has
produced nothing and evidence has also not given him the
opportunity to lead more evidence. The position has to be
taken as it is. On record there is no evidence to show that
the Management had violated the provisions of law while
terminating the services of the workman Since the workman
has foiled to show that he had served the Management for
240 days in twelve months preceding the date of termination
of his services, therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit
of Section 25-F of the Industrial Dispute* Act, 1947. The
workman has further failed to prove (hat he was nol given
equal wages for equal work. Similarly the workman haft
failed to produce any evidence that the Management is an
industry.

In view of the discussion made above I airt of the
opinion that the workman has failed to show that the
Management had violated the provision* of Industrial
Disputes Act* W7 tn terminating his services, in not paying
him equal wages for equal work. He is T therefore, emitted to
no relief. The reference is answered against him and the
award i$ passed.

Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate
government for necessary action and the file be consigned
to records after due completion,

KULDIP SINGH, Residing Officer

[tiPTH—^k^ii)]

2213

WlUMI ttif 10, 2i008/#?ira 20, 1930

«An. aooa

w^n, 1056,—f^5 rNPpir 1947 (1947
14) tiRT 17 ti* 4*3*1111 ^f, 3jl INK

fotim ^ iwmbu r» ifru PimMmJ aftr i*|tfc (Mfeii? ^
4N, '* 154 * 1 4 Mfye sArtflwflwR^ <jS*i?N uotr <4hilPw

4|R|4)<V| 9n *m<IR(4 *f, 2, titiflqg ^ ifal? (iW TWR

(st/ 2005 ) w) iviftn ^ tk4>*i ^

16-4-2008 tift ira Tplf PHI

[7L ^400i2r|79aooi -onf m tft^)]

NewDebi, to 16th April, 200*

3,0, lW(,-Hbi ponwMKf of Section 17 of (he
BndiwAfUiU, Disputea Apt, 1B47 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government turetypublitos the Award Ref No. 658/2005
of the Cent Govt. Indus. Tribunal-uim-I^baur COyrtNo. 2,
Chatidigartt as showy in the Annexurc, in the industrial
d^mte between IheecDpJctyein h idaiinn to to ma na ge m ent
of Deportment of TeUcom end (heir workmen, which wk
recd^t^theCanlnUGOveijiinefkoril&tM'TOOS.

[No, Lr40OI2/17tkQOOl«IR(pU)]
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
aphexure

ClftHIlALGITVERNMEOTlNDUTIlUAL

TRIBlJfMLOBUABOlJRGOUirNl,

CHANDIGARH

PreddlngOOktr SkHKiUlpSiifb

CASEiD.Np- 65&2R5
Registered on: 24-8-2005
Dole ofDecdskm: 7-4-2008

Mllap Chand Cfo Shit N JL J«t,

Lai SinghBnstl Rood; Bhatbdh. ....Petttoner

V«sw

The General Manager, Telecom,

E lO-B^Buldin^Bluitiodr. ^.Re^wndeot

APPEARANCE

For the Workman:

Mr.N.KJeet, AR
For the M&niggHxan
Mr, G-C.Babbar, Advocate

AWARD

The wmrieman Is not present He was not present on
the last dote also. His representative appeared in otfcer
cmet, but stated that he has no instruction to appear in
the case. Today again he has made a simitar statement at
bar. On the last date It was directed that the workman be
summoned again and the notice was sent to him vide this

office No. 945 dated 19th of Feb, 2008, He is not present...
owed today. The previous cood uct of the workman suggests
that he has lost interest in the case as despite getting
opportunities he has failed to produce any evidence, Even
he hiipaelfhas not come to make the statement proving his
affi davit or certifying dteebim made by him. On the request
ofhia representative, the Tribunal allowed the prayer and
directed the summoning pf his witness on certain
QandiUons. The workman did not fulfill these coadfeitts.
Therefore, his witness was not summon&l The position it
that hb representative has also withdrawn from appealing
on his behalf. Government of India, Ministry of Labour
vide their orderNo: L-40012/179/2001-lR(DU)li« desired
to know “Whether the action of Management of Geieral
Manager, Telecom, Bhotinda in terminating the services of
Sb Mi lap Chand S/o Sh. Psrsihda Ramis just and legal? If
not to whet relief the workman is entitled toand from which
date?” The workman, in support of his claim, that he had
worked b Telephone Exchange, Gamboa, Bhatfndafiom
25th of August, 1994 to 1st of Match, 1999 on a monthly
salary ofngiees 2138/- and ihe Management had temunated
his services without notice, charge sheet, enquiry or
compensation and that the Management retafoed his
juniors but terminated his services illegally, has pofeced
no evidence not even has examined himself to prove his
affidavit, nor appeared to answer the quarries of the
Management The claim made by the workman has been
denied by the Management and they have supported their
claim with ihe affidavit of their witness, Th? parlies hare
come to the same platform on facts. The looser in this is the
workman as there is no evidence on record to show that
the workman was engaged In' the Management and ft is
they who had term inured his services illegally. Therefore,
the workman is not entitled to any relief The reference is
answered against him and die award is passed,

Let s copy of this award be sent to the appropriate
government for necessary action and the file be consigned
to records after due completion. 1

KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer
^ 16 eliflT, 2008 !

W.4R 70S7.-^fllliPWi flWR RfaPflti, 1947 (1947
tifl 14) tift tilll 17 tit 4, tii-lftti TWR ift 1 ft

^ tiwtitfi* fttiNnif ate tintoaf i wK

snjsm 4 ftfte Rhn 4 45-die tiwk ^triHhtir
atfMtiRti/titi -tiWIflti ti. 2, ftwft ^ ’'ftiR (Ttof "TOff
127/(994) ueilftn tiroft t, tit afafar trajr wt
16-4-2008 tirt TIPS fW till

[it t2PT-420i2/17*91-«^«R «fc^)]
arstit "iltir aifitasHt
New Delhi, the 16th Apt 11,2008

S-O. 1057,—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Centre!

2214

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 10, 200S/VAJ SAKHA 20,1930

[Part II—Sec, 3(1 i}]

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref,127/94} of
the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-ciiin Labour
Court No. 2, New Delhi as shown in the Aimexure, in the
industrial dispute between the employees in relation to the
mmageiDejit of C.P.W.D. and their workmen, which was
received by the Central Government on 16-04-2008.

[No. L-42012/17493-1R (DU)]
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXUtE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALCUM-
LABOUR COURT-1L NEW DELHI
Presiding Officer: R. N. Rat
I.D. No. 127/1994
Complaint Nou 06/2004
In the matter of:—>

Shfi Suresh Kumar,

C / o the General Secretary.

CPWD Mazdoor Union,

Room No. 95, Barracks No. 1/10, lam Nagar House,
SahqfafaanRoad, New Delhi -110011.

Versus

The Chief Engineer, New Delhi Zone-UL CPWD, Sewa
Dhawan, 1st Floor, R.K. PuranuNew Delhi

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L-42012/174/93
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT DT. 17/29-11-1994has referred
the following point for adjudication.

The point tuns as hereunder

“Whether the action of the management of
C.P-W.D. in not regulating the services of the
workman &h. Suresh Kumar, Sewerman w.e.f.
9.5.1988 is justified? If not, to what relief the
concerned workman is eat it led?”

That the workman wasuutially appointedou9th May,
1988 as Sewerman on Work Order in R.K. Puram Enquiry
under Bub-division-4 of'M* Division under the control of
above management That the workman has not been paid
even minimum wages by the management till dote thereby
taking forced labour which is not permissible under law of
the lamLThat the old pay scale of regular Sewerman in the
CPWD is Rs. 2 10-250 and new pay scale is Rs. 810-1150
and subsequently the Government as per Arbitration
Award, have revised the pay scale w.e.f 1st April, 1981 as
Rs, 260—400 and the new pay scale is Rs. 950-1500.

That the management treated the workman as
contractor calling his work as Work Order, but the foots are
otherwise.

That the workman himself was performing die work
of management under the control and supervision of the
Management in the case of Sim Suresh and other
5ewermen,all are performing duties under the control and
guidance of Junior Engineer of the concerned Sob-division,
That Sbri Suresh Kumar is workman within the definition
of Section2(s)<ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

That the management wantonly and camoufiagedly
indulged in unfair labour practice with a view to deny the
proper pay scale to the workman as indicated above,That
in the C.P.W.D., the daily rated workers were called as
Master Roll Hand Receipt Work order. These type of
nannescannot supplant the character of the workman under
Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.That the
Hon'ble Supreme Court vide their order on 17-1 -1986 in case
of Surender Singh and others Vs,Engmeer-m-Chief r CPWD
have directed the management to pay the petitioners and
all other daily rated employees the same salary and
allowances as are paid to the regular and permanent
employees w.e.f. the date they were respectively employed
and the Hon'ble Supreme Court also hoped that
Government will take appropriate action to regularize the
services of all (hose workmen who have been continuous
service employed for more than six months.That the
management has regularized the services of many junior
persons to this workman on die time scale but the concerned
workman discriminated after the orders of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court

That the management is indulging in unfair labour
practice and exploiting the workman belonging to S/C
community.That the demand of the workman Shri Suresh
Kumar to regularize him in the time scale is justified as well
as legal also.

That it is strange to note that in CPWD the daily
rated workers have been getting wages In die time scale in
their respective employment but Shri Suresh Kumar
belonging to SC community was not even paid minimum
wages which action of the Government department is not
appreciable.

That this Hon'ble Tribunal has the jurisdiction as
envisaged in Schedule 111, Item 7 i.e. “Classification By
Grades,”

That the workman is legally entitled and justified lo
be regularized as Sewerman in the proper time scale w.e.f.
9-5-1988.

The management filed written statement stating
Iherein that there is no such person in the name of Shri
Suresh Kumar working as a Sewerman under the work
charged category of Muster Roll/ Hand receipt category,
in any offices under this zone and, therefore, il is not very
dear as to how there be any dispute regarding alleged
regularization of Shri Suresh Kumar w.e.f. 9*5*84.

|E$H), 20084*19 20, 1930

2215

III facAAerebttKStoSurefoKiHi9,wQri£niga*a
contractor in MJJ. voder PCC:VL Hetakcs small/ petty
works vs Work Order basis and attends such items like
cteanfag end imncwalof drtkage in gaffy traps, dmin p^es,
waste plates etc. and sudi nvfebob which &1I under the
jurisdictifoi of CPWD as stipulated in Woik Order from
time to time on item rate basis. Obviously, payments are
released to this contractor against wink done based on
such Work Orders strictly as per the relevant rules and
regulations currently b vogue.

Therefore, these is no case whatsoever with regard
to any employment of Shri Surah Kumar as a Sewennan in
CPWD. Accordingly, there could be no bsuewilfa regard
to ihe alleged ngularizHdnn of the said Shn Surest Kumar
as a Sewennan w.e.f. 9-5-88 or any other date.

Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this
case, h prana facie amo u nts to misuse of the process of
conciliation proceedings at the forum of Assistant
C ortyn is,'U mMf / Regional I^x njr QnnniisrinMr under the
Ministry of Labour. Union of India.

The workman applicant has filed rejoinder. In die
rejoinder he has reiterated the averments of his claim
statement and has denied most of the paras of the written
statement.

Evidence of both the parties has been taken.

Heard argument from both the sides and perused tbe
papers on the record.

From perusal of the pleadings of the putties the
following issues arise for adjudication:

I. Wbefoer the worionan applicant haa completed 240
days wrek during the tenure of his employment and
wfaefoerthereia employer and employee relationship
between the management and the workman?

2 Whefoo- foe claimant is workman in view of section
2{s) Of the 10 ID Act, 1047?

■i

3. whether the claimant j$ entitled to reinstatement
regularization?

A Whether foe workmen applicant is entitled to Equal
Pay for Equal Work, to what amount nfback wages
foe workman is entitled ?

ISSUE NOlI

It was submitted foam the side of the workmen font
he was engaged as Sewerman w.e.f 09.0S.198S. He was not
paid even minimum wages. He was not pakl the scale of
regular Sewennan in CPWD.

The management treated tbe workman as contractor
calling his work® work Older. He was himself performing
tbe work of the m an agement under the control and
supervision of the management

It was submitted from foe side of the management
that foe workman was working as Sewennan under the
work charge category of Mister KoO/hnnd receipt category.

He was made payment on foe wort order basis and be was
deputed an cleantog and removal ofebokage b gully trapes,
drain pipes, waste, plates etc. and such manholes which
fall under the jomdictan of CPWD.

The management witness has admitted in his cross
examination as lmder—

“It is correct that the name of the workman
Sh. S. Kumar appears m foe complaint register starting
from 09-05-1988,’*

it has been further admitted by the management
witness as under

Tt is correct that sewtraan job has been given to
the workman as per our record”

It was also admitted by foe management witness ns
under—

“I have brought previous record also today. He was
engaged on daily wages @ Rs. 18.80 per day. Tender is
called for six months to one year (witness states that the
work had been given to the workman on basis of some
tender since09-05-1988 till date). This is very important to
determine as to whether foe workman is the regular
employee of foe management or b only a contractor to
whom work is assigned on the basis of tenders.
Management witness b directed to prepare a chart from
09-05-1988 up to his last assignment indicating as to how
many people filled foe tender and opted for doing this
work and whether there was any break in foe continuity of
foe service of this workman from 09-05-1988 till date. He
shall also produce copy of the documents on which his
attendance used to be marked. He shall also indicate as to
from which date he was being paid mocSvly and front which
date he was being paid on the basis of complaints attended
by bun. Terms and conditions of the tender foaQ also be
filled by tbe management There was no difference in foe
quantity of work done by him and he used to be paid go
tbe basis of foe complaint attended by him. Whatever
complaints were being received were being given to him.
Tbe per complaint rate is Rs. 6.30 p. the presence offegular
employment were being entered In this complaint book
who were assigned the duties of die sewerage. Similar type
of diary has been issued to foe regular employees doing
this job. There are regular employees also doing same type
of sewerage job. Those regular employees are being paid
foe grade as per government rates. The workman was not
working in the multi/storyed building. Tbe buildingjob of
which was entrusted to the workman belonged to tbe
Central Government.

Tbe fflanogjoraenl has admitted I tat fab name of tbi?
workman has been altered in fat complaint register starting
from 0£-05-1988. Tbe management witness has admitted
that the job of se^rtmun has been given to the workman as
per their record. The management witness baa further
admitted that tbe workman has been continuously working

2216

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA:MAY 10, 2008/VALSAXNA 20, 1930

[Part 11—See* 3(Si>]

as Sewerman. The management witness has also admitted
that he was engaged on daily wages and he was being paid
an monthly basis.

It is settled Law that even the contractual workers
engaged through contractors for perennial nature of work,
becomes the employee of the Principal Employer. In case
contract is sham and ruse and in case it is found that a
workman is working under control and supervision of the
management and his services are integrated to the
management and payment to him is being made by the
management.

Uhasbcen held in (1992)4 SCC J IS,"'Regularization
Ad hoc/Temporary govt, employees - Principles Laid
down—Those eligible and qualified and continuing in
service satisfactorily fur long period have a right to be
considered for regularize ion - Long continuance in service
gives rise to a presumption about need for a regular post -
But mere continuance fur one year or so does not in every
case raise such a presumption - Govt, should consider
feasibility of regularization having regard to the particular
circumstances with a positive approach and an empathy
for the concerned person."

It has been held in 1997 AIR SC W Page 430 that the
industrial adjudicator should decide whether there is valid
contract or it is a mere ruse/camouflagc and if it is found
that the contractor is only a name lender the management
should be directed to regularize the workmen. In JT 2003
(1) SC 465 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
industrial adjudication is appropriate remedy for the alleged
contract workers. In (2000) 1 SCC 126 - the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that there are multiple pragmatic approach V
factors which should be considered in deciding employer
and employee relationship. According to the criieria there
should be control and integration. The management has
doubtless control over the alleged contractor's men as
they work-in the establishment of the management. They
are integrated to the service of the management. There are
no terms and conditions of the contract so there is master
and servant relationship. The creation of contract labour is
only sham and camouflage and the employer cannot be
relieved of his liabilities.

In Pollock Law of Torts a servant and an independent
contractor has been defined as under t—

The distinction between a servant and a independent
contractor has been the subject maiter of a large volume of
case-law from which the text-book writers on torts have
attempted to lay down some general tests. For example, in
Pollock's Low of T orts. (Pages 62 & 63 of Pollock on Torts,
15th Edit.) the distinction has thus been brought out:

4 A master is one who not only prescribes to the
workman the end of his work, but directs or at any moment
may direct the means also, or, as it has been pul, retains the
power ofcontrollmg the work, a servant is a person subject
to the command of his master as to the manner in which he

shall do his work...An independent contractor is one who
undertakes to produce a given result but so that in the
actual execution ofthe work is nut under the order or control
of the person for whom he does it, and may use his own
discretion in things not specified beforehand..*...*,

In Salmond’s Treatise ou the Law of Torts the
distinction between a servant and independent contractor
has been indicated as under:

“What then, is the icsi of this distinction between a
servant and an independent contractor? The test is the
existence of a right of control over the agent in respect of
the manner in which his work is to be dune. A servant is an
agent who works under the supervision and direction of
his employer; an independent contractor is one who is his
own master A servant is a person engaged to obey his
employer's orders from time to time; an independent
contractor is a person engaged to do certain work, but to
exercise his awn discretion as to the mode and time of
doing it - he is bound by his contract, but not by his
employer's orders

The test regarding independent contractor and
intermediaries have been laid dawn in Hussainabhah Calicut
V. the Alath Factory ThczhiEali Union Kozhikode [AIR 197®
SC 1410 (3 Judges)) ^Tbe true lest may, with brevity, be
indicaled once again. Where a worker or group of workers
labours to produce goods or services and these goods or
services are for the business of another, that other is p in
fact, the employer. He has economic control over the
workers subsistence, skill, and continued employment. If
he, for any reason, chokes off, the worker is, virtually, laid
off The presence of intermediate contractors with whom
the workers have immediate or direct relationship as
contract is of no consequence when, on lifting, the veil or
Looking at the conspectus of factors governing
employment, we discern lho naked trulh, though draped in
different perfect paper arrangement that the real employer
is the management, not the immediate contractor. Myriad
devices, haLT-hiddcn in fold after fold of legal form
depending on the degree of concealment needed, the type
of industry, the local conditions and the like may be resorted
to when labour legislation casts welfare obligations on the
real employer, based on Articles 38 „ 39,42 ± 43 and 43-Aof
the Consttlulion. The Court must be astute to avoid the
mischief and achieve the purpose of the law-and not be
„ misled by the maya of legal appearances."

This case Jaw has been affirmed by the Constitution
Bench Judgment in Steel Authority of India. Ln case the
security job chokes off the workmen would be laid off.
Such contract is prohibited; it is not a contract for a given
resulk

My attention was drawn to another Constitution
Bench Judgment - Steel Authority of India. It has been
held as under:—

* Where a workman is hired In or in connection with
the work of an establishment by the principal employer

t

WIN'!* 10, 20,1930

2217

[^inn—w«?3(i0]

through a contractor, be merely acts as an agent $o there
win be master and servant relationship between the principal
employer and the workmen. But where a workman is hired
in or in connection with the work of an establishment by a
contractor, either because he has undertaken to produce a
given result for the establishment or because he supplies
workmen for any work of the establishment, a question
miglOC arise whether the emtaact is a mere cunouflagtas
In Hiissainahhai Calicut's case (supra) and in Indian
Petrochemicals Corporation's case (supra) etc^ ifdie answer
is in the affirmative, the workmen will be in fact an employee
ofthe principal employer, but if the answer is in the negative,
the workmen will be a contract labourer,"

In the instant case the workmen have not been hired
in connection with the work of a contractor but they have
been hired by tiKoontmctnr for the went of foe respondents.
So.ro the instant case there is contract of service between
the principal employer and the workmen.

The Constitution Bench Judgment of Steel Authority
of India is squarely applicable in Ibe instant case. In JT
2001 (7) SC 268 it has been held foat u l21 (5) On issuance
ofprohibits notification under Section 10( [) ofthe CL RA
Act prohibiting employment of Contract Labour or
otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought IOC before it
by any contract labour in regard tp conditions of service,
■be industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question

whether the contractor has been interposed either on the
pound of banting undertaken to produce any given result
for the estsNdishmeni or for supply of contract labour for
work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a
mere ruse / camouflage to evade compliance with
various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the
workers ofthe benefit thereunder, If foe contract is found
to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, die so-called
contract labour will have to be treated as employees ofthe
principal employer who shall be directed to regularize the
services of the contract labour in the establishment
concerned.”

It has been held la this case that whether there is
prohibition of contract labour or otherwise the industrial
adjMfcator will have to consider fovqueslion and in case
the contra# appears ruseand camouflage to evade compli¬
ance with various beneficial legislations the so called
contract Uxair will have to be treated as the employee of
the prmcipal employer and he shall be directed $o regularize
the services of the contract workers.

Engagement of contract workers for perennial and
regularualue of job is prohibited. The security function is
a perennial nature of job. So long as the respondents exists
there would be need of security for them,so foe work is of
existing, continuous and perennial in nature for such work
contract workers cannot be employed.

According to well reorganization definition of
contract it is ah agreement for a given result The result
should be visible. Contract labourers can be engaged for
the work of contractor only and not for the work of any
establishment. In the present case the work is of the
establishment and not of the contractor. The term supply
of labour by a contractor Is against human dignity. No one
can be a supplier of human labour to any establishment. It
is the duty of State to give employment to citizen and not
of the contractors.

, It is admitted by the management that the workman
was engaged on 9-5-1988 and h e has worked continuously
up to 1-6-2004. During the pendency of the reference the
management illegally removed foe workman in 2004
violating Section 33 ofthe ID Act, ] 947.

The management witness has admitted that by
Circular letter dated 18-08-1993 the engagement of work
order basts, hand receipt basis and contract basis was
prohibited fay the government The workman has worked
under the control and supervision of the managienvent.
MW 1 has not denied foe continuous working of the
workman from 9-5-1988 to I -6-2004The workman is not an
independent contractor. He worked as per direction ofthe
management authorities, so there is employer md employee
between foe management and the workman and the
workman has completed 240 days in every year of his
employment.

This issue is decided accordingly.

ISSUE No. 2

It was submitted from the side of foe management
that foe workmen are independent contractors.

My attention was drawn to the judgment ofHcm'ble
Delhi High Court WP{Q No,7032 of 2005. The Hon’ble
Court has placed foe reliance on order dated 20-43-1993.
The workmen wotted under the direction of foe Engineer
Incharge, m foe above circular the management directed
foe authorities of CPWD to send the list of such daily
rated muster roll workers engaged on hand receipt or work
ordier or any other basts defining foe existing government
instructions ensuring interalia termination of services of
all such workers who have not completed 240 days services
in two tonsequetive ycare.The probable demand requiring
appointment of such workers may also be intimated to this
Directorate. As such in the circular of 1993 a complete ban
was imposed on engagement of workmen on work enter or
hand receipt and it was also directed font the list of those
workers who have completed 240 days of services should
also be intimated to the directorate The Hoo’ble High Court
held font the workers engaged on work order basis shall
also be daily rated workers and provisions of Section
25 - F of the lD Act, ] 947 would be attracted.

211*

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA:MAY 10, 2QQ8/VAISAKHA 20,1930

[PAffi II— Sec. 3(*i)]

The claimant in this case is workman in view of
sectian2(s)ofthe ID Act, 1947.

This issue is decided accordingly.

ISSUE No. 3

It was submitted from the side of the management
that the workmen were engaged as contractors for cleaning
the sewe Hines. Even if it is found that there is direct relation
of employer and employee the workmen may be given
compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

- It was submitted from the side of the workman (hat
compensation is payable in cases where an undertaking
has become sick or it has been dosed or it is in economic
loss. It has not been established that the bankis in economic
loss and it is a sick Indusay.My attention was drawn by
the Ld Counsel of the workman to 2000 LLR 523 State of
UP and Rajender Singh The Horf ble Apex Court ordered
for reinstatement with full back wages as the services of
the daily wager cleaner who worked for 4 year* was
spensed with without following the procedure for
retrenchment. In the instant case also no retrenchment
compensation has been paid. This case law squarely covers
(he instant case.

It has been held in 197* Lab 1C 166* that in case
service of a workman is terminated illegally the normal tuLc
is to reinstate him with lull back wages.

My attention was fiirther drawn (o AIR 2002 SC 1313.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that daily wager
even if serving tor a short period should be reinstated.

U was submitted from the Side of the workman that
in the instant case Sections 25 F p G of the ID Act are
attracted.

In Section 25 of the ID Act it has been provided that
if a warkmanhas performed 240 days work and if the work
is of continuous and regular nature he should be given
pay in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation.

It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that
there Is no cessation of service In case provisions of Section
25 F are not compliedn In the instant case no compensation
btt been paid to the workman.

In case a workman has worked for 240 days in a year
and the work is of continuous and regular nature he should
be paid retrenchment compensation, In case retrenchment
compensation is not paid Section 25 F of the ID Act is
attracted. There is no cessation of his services. He is
deemed continued in service in the eye of law. In case there
ia breach of Section 25 F the service is continued and
reinstatement follows as a natural consequence.

ID Act r 1947 has been enacted to safeguard the
interest of the workmen belonging to poor segment of
society It appears that legislature wanted that such

workmen should not be harassed un necessarily so Section
25 F, If, T and Clause 10 ofVth Schedule have been enacted.
The objects and reasons of ID Act, 1947 show that the
respondent management should not be permitted to
indulge in any unfair labour practice. The workmen should
not be engaged for years and then they should be removed
all of a sudden. There is provision of retrenchment
compensation for his removal. Retrenchment compensation
is for compensating him otherwise so that he can survive
long interregnum of unemployment. In the instant case no
retrenchment compensation has been paid.

It was submitted from the side of the management
that the Hon 1 ble Apex Court in 2006 (4) Scale has put down
a complete ban on regularization and reinstatement. The
Hqrfble Apex Court has held that employment can only be
made on the basis of procedure established in that behalf
envisaged by the Constitution, Equality of opportunity is
the hallmark and the Constitution enshrines affirmative
action to ensure that unequals are not treated equals. So
public employment should be in terms of constitutional
Echcmen

It was further submitted that the Constitution Bench
Judgment has afforded a right according to which the
government is not precluded from making temporary
appointments or engaging workers on daily wages.

The Government has got no license to make always
appointment of daily wagers and to continue them for life
time. Fixed term tenure appointments and temporary
appointments cannot be the rule of public employment. At
the time of making temporary appointments Articles 14? 16,
21,23* 226 & 309 are in fringed. There is no constitutional
mandate that the government is at liberty to go on giving
fixed term appointments for the entire tenure of service of
an employee.

The Government or Public Sector units cannot
continue incessantly to give temporary and fixed term
appointments again and again. Since fixed term
appointments and temporary appointments are not
governed by any constitutional scheme, such
discrimination wilt amount to vicious discretion. The
Government of Public Sector unit will go on resorting to
the method of pick and choose policy and give lemporaty
and adhot appointments to their favorites and thus the
principles of equality enshrined in the constitution will be
given a go bye. Such is not the intent of the Hon'bte Apex
Court. However, in this judgment the provisions of the
ID Act governing the services of the workman have not
been declared unconstitutional. Reinstatement is the
remedy provided in the ID Act for breach of several
provisions enumerated there in or for breach of service
rules provided in various labour welfare legislations.

A three Judges bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court
has held in 1993 * II * LJ that tetmination of services affects
the livelihood of not only of the employee but also of the

[tBrrii^S3(ii)i

dependents. So in case of illegal termination of service the
workman should be reinstated.

Hie workman was engaged as casual labour w.e.f.
9-5*1988 and when be mbed the dilute his service were
illegally terminated by the management in 2004* The
workman has worked continuously from 1988 to 2004.

The workman was initially was initially engaged on
09-05-1988 and he has rendered continuous service up to
“26thOctober, 2004, As such he has served the management
from 09-05-1988 to 26th October, 2004 and thereafter the
management has illegally terminated die services of this
workman.

. The workman is a manual labour. He must b«
performing some duties of cleaning sewer etc., so be Is
entitled to 5014 back wages. The workman is entitled to
reinstatement along with 50% buck wages since the
termination of his sendees i.e. 26th October, 2004. He is
further entitled to regularization.

It has been held in Constitution Bench Judgment in
Uma Devi’s case that m case a temporary employee has
worked for 10 years even temporarily and not without the
orders of the court die government should consider the
feasibility of regularization. This workman has admittedly
worked from 1988 to 2004, so he has rendered continuous
service for 15 - 16 years. The Hon*ble Apex Court had
directed for regularization of the services of the workman
who have'completed 10 years of service. This workman
worked continuously for 15 16 yvarstbeteafler his services
have been terminated, so this workman js entitled to
regularization.

This issue is decided accordingly.

ISSUE Nix 4

It was submitted from the side of the workman that in
viewof 1966LU134, AIR 1991 page 173 in vtewof Directive
Principles of Suite policy has confirmed in Article 30(d) of
the Constitution a casual workman cannot be denied the
same salary of class - IV emptoyees when they performed
the same duties on regular basis. There should be equal
pay far equal wtirk add it should be treated as a fundamental
right in service jurisprudence.

It basbeenheldb (2003)6 SCC123 asunder;

The principle'of “equal pay for equal worif is not
always easy to apply. There are inherent difficulties in
comparing and evaluating the work done by different
persona in different Organizations, or even in the same
organization. K is a concept which requires for its
applicability complete and wholesale identity between a
group of employees Claiming identical pay scales and foe
other group of employees who have already earned such
pay scales. The problem about equal pay cannot always

.2219

be translated Into a mathematical formula. It is obvious
from the judgment that the principles of equal pay for equal
work cannot be applied everywhere. A daily wager holds
no post. Scale of pay is attached to-* definite post' This
workman was not holding any definite post, so be cannot
be compared with the regular tnd permanent staff for equal
pay and allowances.

[t has been fiother held in (2003) I SCC250as under;

“Equal pay for equal work - applicability of the
principle of held, depmds not only on the nature or volume
of work but also on the qualitative difference in reliability
and responsibilities as well—evpn in case of same
functions, responsibilities domake a real and substantial
difference-It is for the claimant of parity to substantiate a
clear - cut basis of equivalence and a resultant hostile
discrimination - In absence of requisite substantiating
material, High Court e rred in granting the NMR workers'
daily wagm/casual woricere parity in pay with the regularly
employed staff merely on presumption of equality of the
nature of work - However, such workers, held, entitled to
payment of prescribed minimum wages.”

F

It has been held in this case tint equal pay for equal
work would depend iqun not only die nature or the volume
of work but also on the qualitative difference as regards
reliability and responsibilities though the .functions may
be the same.

The workman was engaged on work order basis. He
was not a regular employee, so he is not entitled to Equal
Pay For Equal Work,

. It has been held in the other issues that the workman
has worked for 240 days every year during the entire period
of bis engagement. His services ware illegally terminated
on 26-10-2004 while thlt reference was pending. The
workman is a manual worker. He must be doing some sort
Of work off and on. In the circumstances .the workman is
entitled to 50% back wages from 26-10-2004.

This issue is decided accordingly.

The reference is replied thus

The action of the management of CPWD in not
regularizing the services ofthe workman a, Stevsh Kunw,
Sewermkn is not Justified. The workman Is entitled to
reinstatement along with S0% back waps since the date of
termination ofhis services Le.26-10-2004. He is oho entitled
to regularization we £26-10-2004 The management dtouid
reinstate the workman w.e.f 26th October, 2QW and pay
him 50% back wag es and reguferoc his services with in two
months from the date of the publication of the award.
Complaint no06/2004*s decided accwdrogly.

The award is given accordingly.

Dsed 31-3-2008

R. N. RA], Presiding Officer

tiRcTqil TRTT 10, 2008/^lTH 20, 1930

1526 GI/06—16

2220

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY JO, 2005VA1SAKHA 20,1930

[Part II—SecJ(l)]

16 2008

W.CT, 1050,—aHfiilPl* fcWK 4ll»l!H*W, 1947 (1947
^1 14) VTT17 ^

^ JW'lJl ^ -flili ^ 41^,

FiPta afftdtfirar ftupj ^ m$Ai afttilThtb
aiftwi 9 pt ^wiwj 2* M f^Mrfl
62/96)^ 16—1-2008
■^Tira mi

[K T^-420lI/65/96-3Hf m. {^)]
'^HK t -iw* srfi^nft

New Delhi* the 164b April, 200B

S+O* 1058.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 62/96) of
the Centers! Government Industrial Tribunal-cum Labour
Court No-2. New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the
industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of C, P, W.D. and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on 16-04-200*.

[No. L-4201 ltf 5/96-lR(DU)J
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TKUBUNALrCUM-
1ABOURCOUHT-II, NEWDLEH1

Presiding Officer: RlN. Rai I.D. No. 62/1996

INTHEMATTEROF:

Shri Hari Ram p Represented by
General Secretary,

GPWD Mazdoor Union,

B26(OidQrtr), Raja Bazar,

Baba Kharak Singh Marg,

New Delhi -1 1000].

Venus

Director General of Works* C.P.W.D.

Niivnan Bhawan* New DeBu -1EO00L

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour* Government of India vide
its Order No. L4201 l/65/96-IR(DU)clated 30-5*96 have
referred the dispute between the above parties for
wljudkadon and the schedule is reproduced below:

41 Whether the action of the managenwiit of CP WD
in not regularizing the services of S/Shri Hari
Ram, Rajender Singh, Masons and
S/Shri Des Raj and Dbawmvir, Plunders is
justified? Jf not, to what relief the concerned
workmen are entitled to?”

That S/Shri Hari Ram and Rajinder Singh were initially
engaged as Masons on full category and
S/Shri Desh Raj and Dharamvir were initially engaged as
Plumbers on full category and they were working under
Delhi Avialion Division, CPWD, R, K, Puram, New Delhi
and posted at Jharoda Kalan.

That Shri Dharamvir* Plumber was transferred w.e.f
24-9-92 from Delhi Aviation Division to lowahor Lai Nehru
Stadium* Asian Games Division-Ill at Lodhi Road, New
Delhi.

That full particulars of the workmen are given as
under:

S. No. Name of the
Father's Name
Designation
Date of Engagement

I, Hari Rain

Prabhu DayaL

Mason

5*10-79

2. Rajender
Singh

Man Singh

Mason

4-3*86

3. Des Raj

Mool Chand

Plumber

13-11-86

Dbaram vir

Salag Ram

Plumber

11-12-86

That the above workmen have been performing their
duties continuously without any break.

That the name of Shri Hari Ram was registered as
Mason in the employment exchange. Copy of the same h
marked as annexure "A" with this application.

That the name of Shri Rajender Singh was registered
Mason in employment exchange. Copy of the same is
marked as Annexure ’B 1 with this application.

That the name of Shri Des Raj was registered as
plumbeT indie employment exchange. Copy of the same is
marked as Amiextire LE C" with this application.

That the name of Shri Dharamyir was registered as
Plumber in the employment exchange. Copy of the same
marked as Annexure “D 1H with this application.

That the above workmen have been performing their
duties as skilled artisans in the divisions or the above
management and same is confirmed as per the experience
certificate issued by the officers concerned as under: that
the o^ncemed Engineers has issued certificate that Hari
Ram ts doing the job of full Mason in this campus since
long time and the same is exhibited as Annexure A-L

That the concerned Engineers has issued certificate
that Rajender Singh is doing the job on full Mason in this
campus since long time and the same is exhibited as
Annexure B-l.

That concerned Engineer has issued certificate that
Shri Des Raj is doing the job of full Plumber since long time
and the same is exhibited as Annexure C-T,

[qpflI_Sro3(jj)]

10 , 200S/$¥IW 30,1930

2221

That Shri Dbararavir has pertbnned work of Sill
Plumber upto 24-9-92 in the Delhi Civil Aviation Division
and thereafter in the Asian Gomes Divi5ion-IU,J.N. Stadium.

That all the four workmen have been working
independently as Masons and Plumbers.

That in the assistant category. Masons/ Plumbers
were getting wages in the time scale of Rs. 210*290 upto
31*12*85 and w.e S. 1*1*86 in the pay scale of Its. 800*1 ]QQ.

That in fheCPWD, the wages of skilled workmen in
the category of Mason/ Plumber have been getting in the
old pay scale of Rs. 260-400 and w.e.f. 1-1-86 in the pay
scale of Its. 950-1500.

That alter the implementation of judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Surinder Singh
and others Vs. Engineer -in - Chief, CPWD dated
17-1-86 for equal pay for equal worit, the daily rated
workmen/ muster roll in the category of Mason/Plirmber
are getting wages in the fillL scale i.e.Rs. 260-400/950-1500
as skilled workmen.

That the management has not been paying the wages
to the above workmen in the pay scale of Rs. 260-400/950*
1500. but their wages are fixed arbitrarily in the assistant
category as unskilled workmen in the pay scale of Rs. 210
290/—Rs. 800*1100 but the workmen have been performing
their duties as full Mason/P lumber and working
independently so come whhin the definition of skilled
workmen as per CPWD Work charged Manual Vol. Ill nnd
also as per the categorization under the Minimum Wages
Act, 1948.

That the workmen have been performing the same
duties as their counterparts have been doing on regular
and work c har ged categories but the concerned workmen
discriminated in the payment of pay and allowances for
skilled category.

That at the time of filling up the vacancies through
sponsorship from employment exchange, the Executive
Engineer had conducted ‘trade test for the above four
workmen and after qualifying die said teat conducted by
the said authority, they were engaged for the work of
M ason/Pl umber, respectively.

That S/Shri Des Raj and Dhnramvir, Plumbers had
also qualified the trade test as prescribed by the
Coordination Circle under the management of Plumber and
the same is marked as Annexure -E with this applicatfon.

That . Shri Ram Singh was appointed as Asstt. Mason
but his services were regularized as Mason in the year
J 986 in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 but S/Shri Hari Ram
and Rajmder Singh, Plumbers, were discriminated even in
the payment of pay and allowances in the scale of Rs. 950-
1500 and till date their services have not been regularized
by the management.

That the workmen have been performing their duties
relating to masionaiy/Plumber works for maintenance of
buildings which are of skilled nature.

That more than 25000 workers have been working
under the above management in different divisions on the
work of mabuenance of buildings.

That according to Model Standing Rules under
Industrial Employment Act, a workman having completed
90 days of continuous service deemed to hove attained the
status of permanent workman and the management has
been want only denying the facilities to the workmen and
thereby discriminating them amongst the same
employments which is nothing than the hostile
discrimination against the workmen concerned with this
dispute.That as per Model Standing Orders under the
Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, in
Schedule -I, the operative portion is reproduced as under
n st

Management filed written statement stating therein
that

Contents of this pant are nutter of record.

In foot, Shri Hari Rom S/o Shri Prebhu Dayat was
initially appointed on Muster Roll on 5-10*79 in the category
of Assistant Mason and Shri Rajendra Singh S/o Shri Man
Singh was initially appointed on Muster Roll on 4-3-85 in
the category of Assistant Mason. They were never
appointed as Mason as alleged in this para. '

In reply to para 3, it is respectfully submitted that
Shri Dharamveer, Assistant Plumber was transferred on
24-9-1992 from Delhi Aviation Division to'Asian Games
Division No. Ill, who was also Initially appointed on Mirier
Roll as Assistant Plumber.

Contents of para 4 are not correct The workmen
were never appointed as Mason/ Plumber but as Auutu

M ascitfAssistant Plumber, particulars of their engagement

are matter of record.

Contents of para 5 are wrong and denied. The
workmen were engaged as Assistant Mason and Assistant
Plumber in the category of Semi-skilled workers. The
workers were performing their duties as per norms laid
down for the respective categories.

Contents of para 6 ore not correct. It is not
understood as to how the workers have .obtained the
certificate, as alleged in fob para.

In reply to para 7, it is wrong and denied that all the
four workmen have been working independently as Mason
and Plumbers. They were never deputed as such. They
were deputed for foe duties as per norms of their category
of Assistant Workers i.e. Assistant Mason and Assistant
Plumbers.

In reply to para 9 , it- is submitted that foe scales
mentioned in this para Were meant for skilled workmen
whereas foe workmen to this ease pertains to Semi -skilled
category and not skilled category.

Pare 10 needs no reply. However, it is respectfully
submitted that, the four workmen of fob case were in foe

2223

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 10, 2QQ&VA1SAKKA 20 h 1930

(Part 11-Sec. 3(li)l

assistant Category and they were given the scale meant
for them.

In reply to para 11 it is again reiterated that the
workmen were engated as Assistant Mason and assistant
Plumber and have not been working independentlyn They
are nut covered by the definition of Skilled-workmen.

Contentions raised in para 12 and 13 are wrong and
denied. The workers were engaged as Semi-skilled workers
in the category of assistant Mason and Assistant Plumber.

Contentions raised in para 14 are wrong and denied.
Qualifying the trade-test does not mean full scale, until
and unless they are so appointed. Passing the trade test
means that they can be appointed to the post of Plumber
and Mason as and when vacancies are available according
to their seniority.

In reply to para 15 it is submitted that S/Shri Hari
Ram, Rajinder Singh are Assistant Masons and not
Plumbers. The matter of their regularization is under process
and active consideration of the competent authority.
Regularisation depends upon the availability of posts and
el®bilhy of workers.

In reply to para 16 it is respectfully submitted that
regularization depends on various factors and as already
stated the regularization is under consideration depending
upon various factors such as sanction of posts* availabi lity
of vacancies/posts and eligibility of the workers.

Para 17 and 1S need no reply as no citation has been
given and full judgement has not been attached. Hence,
the respondents are unable to state anything in this case.
There has been no discrimination. No names of junior
persons regularized have been disclosed. Hence
Respondents are unable to say anything in this regard. To
the best of their knowledge, no junior person has been
regularized h If there is any* workmen may be directed to
supply the names of such junior persons for consideration
and investigation of the matter.

In reply to para 19 it is respectfully submitted than
the workmen are performing petty repairs of Semi-skilled
nature and not the construction of maintenance work of
government Buildings r The workers are being paid
according to the Wages Act and Industrial Employment
Act and Rules made thereunder.

Contentions raised in para 20 and 21 are wrong and
dental The workers have been performing (heir duties
relating to the Assistant category* which is not of skilled
nature.

Contents raised in para 22 and 23 are wrong and
d?ry*d However* it is respectful ly submitted that the matter
of regularization is already under active consideration of
competent authority depending upon their eligibility and
availability.

[n the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer
of die applicants cannot be granted. It is accordingly prayed

that the application, being misconceived are wrong, may
kindly be dismissed with costs.

The workman applicant has filed rejoinder. In the
rejoinder he has reiterated the averments of his claim
statement and has denied most of the paras of the written
statement. The management has also denied most of the
paras of the claim statement.

Evidence of both the parties has been taken.

Heard argument from both the sides and perused the
papers on the record*

It is admitted to the management that Sh< Hari Ram
was engaged as Mason on 05-10-1989 and his services
have not been regularized so far. Sti. Rajinder Singh was
engaged as Mason on 04 -03-19KS and he has been still
working. Sh, Desh Raj was engaged as Plumber on
13-11-1986 and bis services have been continued-
Sli. Dharamvir was engaged as Plumber on 1 l-02-19EGand
his services are still being continued.

From the above it becomes quite obvious that the
workman Desh Raj has rendered 21 years of service. This
workman is still working as temporary employee. Payment/
Grade of skilled workman has not been made so far.

MW 1 has admitted in his cross-examination that the
orders dated 20.10.2000 were issued by the S.C.
Co -ordination of CPWD for the regularization of SJl Han Ram
&Sh r Rajinder Singh w.e f 17.10.1996 in Assistant Cetegoty.

Sh. Rajinder Singh was engaged on 04.03.1986 and
his services have been regularized in Assistant Category
since 17,10-1996. It was also brought to my notice that Ihe
services of Sh. Dharamvir has also been regularized. The
management has not regularized the services ofSh, Desh
Raj. He has been working continuously as Plumber From
13, M ,1986. Sh. Dharamvir is junior to Sh. Desh Raj and, his
services have been regularized. The workman Sh, Desh Raj
has served the management for 20 - 21 years.

It was submitted from the side of the management
that in Manika DevPs case the judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court of seven Judges Bench has held that the government
should follow the principles of reasonableness in execution
of action. The services of other three workmen of this case
has been made regular. This workman has worked for almost
20-21 years. The Hon'ble Apex Court in2007 (12) Scale
has held that rt would surely not be reasonable if claim of
regularization is denied even after such a long period of 2 L
years. The management has violated Article 14 of the
Constitution of India on ihe grounds of arbitrariness and
un reasonableness. If an employee has put such a long
service* benefit of regularization cannot be denied to him
and he could not be made to face the same selection which
fresh recruiters have to face.

The management has taken the plea that the posts
are not sanctioned and appropriate action will be taken
when po$t$ are sanctioned. It is admitted to the management

[Riffll—4NB3(ii)]

RWH3TNPI8 10, 2008/^ira 20, 1930

2233

that a junior employee to Sh. Desh Raj engaged as Plumber
has been regularized. In the circumstances non-
regularization of the services ©fSh. Desh Raj is violative of
Article 14 of Constitution of India.

It is no doubt, the prerogative of the government to
sanction posts but in case posts are not sanctioned for
20 • 21‘years it would be on-reasonable and arbitrary and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. No
employee can be keptteniporaiyfar20-21 years even in
view of (he recent judgment of Uma Devi's case of (be
Constitution Bench Judgment.

It has been held m this case that in case a workman
has worked continuously for 10 years, the government
should consider the feasibility of regularization. Sh. Desh
Raj deserves regulftizetkm in view of die regularization of
the services of Sh. Hari Ram and, Dharamvir and
Sh. Rajiixfer Siighw.e.£ 17-10-1996. This workman » also
entitled to regularization and all (he emoluments from
17-10-1996 as the management-has done in the case of
Sh. Rajender Singh.

The reference is replied thus:

The action of the management of CPWD in not
regularizing the services of Shrl Desh Raj, Plumber b not
justified. The management Should regularize the services
of Sh, Desh Raj, Plumber from 17-10-1996 and pay him
arrears accordingly within two months from the date of the
publication of the award.

The award is given accordingly.

Dote: 2*.C33t)0*

R. N. RAJ, Presiding Officer
16 3^,2008

W.OT. 1059.—Hwn auftPlWT, 1947 11W7
ail 14) ^ RKT17 ^ 3, <6d&*l 4H«K

atjWs 3 fflSvj ^ 0*494 +H4iK dAfeilPiai

Jt(W«i 2,^1$ ■'Nie (TM’staii

6/96) "Si nwiftiu wvil f", mw 'ml16-4-2008

. [ll t^t-42011/229/94-31^ SIR

arzq ^HK, siflimifr
New Delhi, (heldth April, 2008

S.Q. 1059.—It) pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), {he Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.6/96) Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum Labour CourtNo-2,
Now Delhi as shown fai the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between tho employers in relation to the
management of C.P.WJ). and then- workmen, which was
received by the Central Government on 16-04-2008.

[No. L-4201 l/229/94-|R(Dl))l
AMY KUMAR, DeskQfficer

ANNEXU0E

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER! CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBINALCUM-
LABOtmooiiKr*n, newdlehi

PRESIDING OFFICER: tCN.RAl

LD, No. 06/1996

IN THE MATTER OF:

Shri Rattan Laland Vijay Pol,

C/o CPWDMazdoor Union,

E*26(6idQitr),RjjB Bazar,

Baba Kharak Singh Maig,

New Delhi.

Vetaus

Tbe Executive Engineer,

*G’ Division, CPWD,

East Block-II, Level H,

R.Kj’uram, New Delhi

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No.L42011/229/
. 94.UUDU) dated 27/2&ti December, 1995 DT27/28-] 2-1995
has referred the following point for adjudication:

The point runs as hereunder:

“Whether the action of the management of
Executive Engineer, CPWD in tenffittating
the services of Shri Rattan Lul and Vijay Pal
Sweeper and Sewtemanrespectfvelywx.f 1-9-93
-is justified? If not, to what relief the workmen are
entitled T

The workmen applicants have filed claim statement.
In the claim statement it has been stated (hat they were
working under the direct control of Director General of
Works, CPWD, Nirman Bhewan, New Delhi

That tbe management of CPWD has been recruiting
Daily Rated workers by calling them Muster Roll-Workers,
Hand Receipt woken and Work order workers and all the
workmen have been performing same and similar duties as

they counterparts in the regular category ofworkcharge in
the time scale. .

That this feet is confirmed by letter no34/17/93-EC.X
dated 18th August, 1993 issued by the Director of
Administration, CPWD to all the Chief Engineers and their
subordinate offices not to engage daily rated workmen on
muster roll, hand receipt or work order. The copy of the
said order is enclosed herewith and marked as Anuexure-
A with this claim application.

Thai as per Hon’bie Supreme Court Older dated
17-1-86 in the matter of Swfcider Singh A Ors Vs. Englneer-
in-Chief, CPWD, all tbe daily rated workers have got the
areats of equal pay in the lime scale as their counterparts
have been getting in the time scale attached with the
respective postsand are still daily rated workers in the said

2224

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 10, 20C&VAI SAKHA 2a 1930

[Part II— Sec. 3(ii)]

establishment but the daily rated workers engaged on the
socallcd nomenclature of work order have got only wages
fined under the Minimum Wages Act fixed by the
appropriate government from time to time*

That full particulars of workers connected with this
dispute are given as under:

(I) Shri Rattan Lai £/o Shri Shyam Lai was engaged as
Sweeper on unskilled work w,e.f. 6-1-86 and he
worked continuously himself under the direct control
and supervision of the above management upto the
date of termination i,e. 1-9-93 without any
compensation^ notice, notice pay etc. as provided
under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(II) Similarly, Shri Vijay Pal S/o Shri Cham pat was also
engaged as Sewerman w.e.f. 1M-1990 with the
management and worked continuously himself under
the direct control and supervision of the above
management upto the date of termination i.e.
I -9-1993, without notice, notice pay, compensation
etc + as prescribed under the provisions of Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947.

(III) That as per the classification of the management of
CPWD* regular Sewerman has been classified as
skilled workman and getting the wages in the pay
scale ofRs. 950-1500 but the concerned workman
Shri Vijay Pal was paid only minimum wages
fixed for unskilled workmen for the work
performed by him during his employment with the
management.

That the management did not servo proper nolice,
notice pay or gratuity as per Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
and Also violated Section 25(f) of the said act

That many junior workmen working in the CPWD
were retained in service and the above workmen have been
terminated when they demanded wages in the proper pay
scale as equal pay for equal work which the management
was already paying to the daily rated workmen whose
nomenclature were termed by the management as Sweeper
ehheron muster roll or hand receiptor Sewerman on .

roll or hand receipt

That the management discriminated in payment cl
wages even between the daily rated workmen which L
also unfair Labour practice as envisaged In the Fifth Schedule
of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

That the establishment of the management to
undertake work of maintenance and construction nf
buildings, supply of electricity and water etc. is covered
under the Payment of Wages Act thereby covered under
the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and
as per the said Act, the workmen are entitled to permanent
status after completion of 90 days of service.

That the management with a view to deny the
workmen permanent status after completion of 90 days of

service terminated their services which also unfair labour
practice under the iaid provisions of the Act.

That the workmen are not only entitled to be
reinstated in service but also are entitled tube reinstated in
the time scale as daily rated workers have been getting
wages in the time scale except increment as per the order of
DOW, CPWD complying with the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Surender Singh & Others
Kn Engincers-in-Chief, CPWD for the payment of equal
pay for equal work to ihe daily rated workers.

That the action of the management for terminating
the services of workmen S/Shri Rattan Lai and Vijay Pal
Sweeper and Sewerman respectively w.e.f 1-9-93 neither
justified nor legal.

That both the workmen are entitled to be reinstated
in the time scale attached with the respective posts w e.f.
1-9-1993 with full back wages, continuity h service with all
consequential benefits.

The management has filed written statement. In the
written statement it has been stated that the above said
claimants have no locus standi to file this claim against the
respondent management being there is no industrial dispute
between the parties.

That there is no relationship of Employer and
employee and that a master and servant either existing or
otherwise exists between the claimant and (he respondent
management i.e. C.P.W D, 'G* Division.

That there is no industrial dispute between the parties
and there is no relationship existing between the claimants
and the management as an employee and employer.
Therefore the present reference is not maintainable and is
liable to be quashed on this short ground and the claim of
the claimant is not supported by an affidavit therefore the
claim is not maintainable in the eye of law and in the interest
of justice at all

That this court lias no jurisdiction to entertain such
references being the reference made in the present case is
not maintainable and is not entertainable, Therefore, it is
liable to be rejected/dismissed.

That by virtue of the position of the applicant-claimant
and (he status of the applicant-claimant as a contractor,
they did not answer the description of the word '^workmen”
as defined in clause(s) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes
Act 1947. In view of this position of the matter the application
of the applicant-claimant is utterly misconceived and the
same deserve to be dismissed outrightly in limine.

I hat the above said claimants were engaged as a
contractor and they were awarded the contract for cleaning
of sewerliues on complaint basis and they were never
engaged as an employee or a workman on daily wages and
they were never designated as a sewerman.

That the above said claimants were engaged as a
contractor workmen and they arc bound and governed by

[TOtl—TO3(tij>]

IQ, 2008/^m 20, 1930

2225

Chapter lit of Contracts of CPWD Manual and the
Arbitration and Litigation cases of Section 34 of the said
volume. Therefore, when dispute arises between the parties
then they can approach the management to appoint the
arbitrator only.

That without prejudice to the above, it is submitted
that the present dispute referred by the Government of
India to this honourable courtAribunal for adjudication is
not an industrial dispute as defined under section 2(k) of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 because it ia not a case of
discharge, dismissal retrenchment or termination of the
services of the claimant As already submitted above that
it is a case of contractor ship which is not come under the
purview of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and the
provision of the industrial Depute Act, 1947 does not apply
in this case. Therefore, the present reference made by the
government in that respect is without jurisdiction and is
liable to be quashed out rightly by this honourable court

The workmen applicants have filed rejoinder. In the
rejoinder they have reiterated fee averments of their claim
statement bid have denied most of file paras of file written
statement. The management has also denied most of the
paras of the claim statement.

Evidence of both the parties has been taken.

Heard and perused the written briefs and fee papers
on the record.

From perusal of the pleadings of the patties the
following issues arise for adjudication:

1. Whether the workmen applicants have completed
240 days work during the tenure oftheir employment
and whether there is employer and employee
relationship between the management and the
workmen?

2. Whether the claimants are workman in view of
Section 2(s) ofthe ID Act, 1947.

h

3. Whether the claimants are entitled to reinstatement/
regularization?

4. Whether the workmen applicants are entitled to
Equal Pay for Equal Went?

5. To what amount of back wages the workmen are
entitled?

1SSUENCU

It was submitted from the side of fee workmen that
the workman Sh. Rattan Lai was engaged as sweeper on
unskilled work w.e.f. 06-01-1986 and he worked
continuously himself under the direct control and
supervision of the above management upto the date of
termination i.e, 01-09-1993 without any retrenchment
compensation, notice pay etc. as provided in Section 25-F

of the ID Act, 1947, Sh, Vjjay Pal was also engaged as
Sweeper w.e.f. 18-04-1990 with the m an agement and he
worked continuously under the control and supervision of

the management tilt 01-09-1993. His services were
terminated without any retrenchment compensation or pay
in lieu of notice.

It was ftulher submitted that the Administrator of
CPWD issued an order dated 18-08-1993 to aD the Chief
Engineers not to engage workmen on muster roll, hand
receipt or contract worker and accordingly the management
terminated the services ofthe workman on 01 -09-1993.

It was submitted from the side of the management
feat the status of the claimants was as a contractor. They
did not answer the description of die wont “workmen" as
defined under clause 2(s) of the ID Act, 1947.

It was further submitted that these workmen were
awarded the contract for cleaning of sewerlines on
complaint basis and (hey were never engaged as an
employee and they wore never designated as Sewenneti. ‘
The workmen were engaged under Chapter- ITT Contract of
CPWD Manual and the Arbitration and Litigation Cases
33 ofthe said volume.

The workmen have filed photocopy of work order
which bears the seal and signature of the Asstt Engineer
frontpages 37 to 229. These photocopies establish feefeet
that they have received payment directly from the
management and these photocopies have been signed by
the officials of fee management and these photocopies
have been admitted by the management. So these
photocopies have fee force of the original ones. The
originals cannot be said to be in Hie possession of (he
workmen, so they have filed the photocopies and these
photocopies have been admitted by the management, so
these photocopies are admissible tn evidence. ,

From perusal of these photocopies it becomes quite
obvious feat the workmen have worked under the control
and supervision ofthe management. The management has
decided what is to be done and bow it is to be done.

It is settled law that for perennial nature of work
engagement of contract labour is prohibited as per Section
10(4) of the CLRA Act, 1970. Cleaning of the seweriines is
perenhial nature of work and contractors or contractor’s
men cannot be engaged.

The management witness has admitted feat (he
documents produced by them are correct including (he
work diaiy marked “X", Hehas also admitted ttotfee inquby
clerk used to tell fee workman where to go for fee job. This
witness has further admitted (hat payment used to be
made (o the employees on fee monthly basis cm fee basis
of work done by them at the relevant period. This witness
has admitted the working of these two wotftmen and
payment of monthly wages.

In case a workman engaged as contractor, worked
under the supervision and control of fee management he
becomes an employee of the management

It has been held in (1992)4 SCC118. “Regularization
Ad Aoc/Temporaiy goVermcut employees—Principles laid

2m

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 10,20OSWSAKHA 30,1930

[Fait II—Sec, 3{ii)]

dawn - Those eligible and qualified and continuing in
service satisfactorily for long period have a right to be
considered for regularization - Long continuance in service
gives rise to a presumption about need for a regular post -
But mere continuance for one year or so does not in every
cue raise such a presumption - Goverment should consider
feasibility of regularization having regard to the particular
circumstances with a positive approach and an empathy
for the concerned person."

It has been held in 1997 AIR SC W Page 430 that the
industrial adjudicator should decide whether there is valid
contract or it is a mere ruse / camouflage and if it is found
that the contractor is only a name lender the management
should be directed to regularize the workmen. In JT 2003
(1) SC 465—the Hau’ble Supreme Court has held that
industrial adjudication is appropriate remedy for the alleged
contract worker. ln(2000)TSCC 126' the Hon'bJe Supreme
Court has held that there ore multiple pragmatic approach/
factors which should be considered in deciding employer
and employee relationship. According to the criteria there
should be control and integration. The management has
doubtless control over the alleged workmen as they worked
in the establishment of the management. They are integrated
to the service of the management. The creation of contract
laboir is absolutely sham and camouflage and the employer
cannot be relieved of his liabilities.

In Pollock Law of Torts a servant and an independent
contractor has been defined as under;

The distinction between a servant arid a independent
contractor has b«n the subject matter of a large volume of
case-law from which the text-book writers on torts have
attempted to lay down some general tests,

For example, in Pollock's Low ofTorts* (Pages 62 &
63 of Pollock on Torts, 15th Edo.) the distinction has thus
been brought out:

“A master is one who not only prescribes to the
workman the end of hk workout directs or at any moment
may direct the means also, or, as it has been put, retains the
power of controlling the work, a servant is a person subject
to the command of his master as to the manner in which he
shall do his work. An independent contractor is one who
undertakes to produce a given result but so that in the
actual execution of the work is not under the order or control
of the person for whom he does it, and may use his own
discretion in things not specified beforehand."

In Salmond’s Treatise on the Law of Torts the
distinction between a servant and independent contractor
has been indicated as unden

41 What then, is the test of this distinction between a
servant and an independent contractor? The test is the
existence of a right of control over the agent in respect of
the manner in which his work is to be done. A servant is an
agent who works under the supervision and direction of
hi$ employer; an independent contractor is one who is his

own master, A servant is a person engaged to obey his
employer's orders from time to time; an independent
contractor is a person engaged to do certain work, but to
exercire his own discretion as the mode and time ofdoing it
he is bound by his contract, but not by his employer’s
orders"

The test regarding independent contractor and
intermediaries have been laid dawn in Hussainabhai, Calicut
V, the A lath Factory Thezhiteli Union kozhifcode [(AIR 1978
SC 1410 (3 Judges)] H+ the true test may, with brevity, be
indicated once again. Where a worker or group of workers
labours to produce goods or services and these goods or
services are for the business of another, that other is, in
fact, the employer. He has economic control over the
workers subsistence, skill, and continued employment, If
he, for any reason, chokes off, the worker is, virtually, laid
oft The presence of intermediate contractors with whom
(he workers have immediate or direct relationship as
contract is of no consequence when, on lifting the veil or
looking at the conspectus of factors governing
employment, we discern the naked truth, though draped in
different perfect paper arrangement, than the real employer
is the management* nor the immediate contractor. Myriad
devices, half-hidden in fold after fold of legal form
depending on the degree of concealment needed, the type
of industry, the local conditions and the like may be resorted
to when labour legislation casts welfare obligations on the
real employer, based on Articles 35,39,42,43 and43-Aof
the Constitution. The Court must be astute to avoid the
mischief and achieve the purpose of the law and not be
misled by the maya of legal appearances '"

This case law has been affirmed by the Constitution
Bench Judgment in Steel Authority of India. In case the
security job chokes off* the workmen would he laid off.
Such contract is prohibited; it is not a contract for a given
result.

My attention was drawn to another Constitution
Bench Judgment - Steel Authority of India. It has been
held asunder:^

bl Where a workman is hired in or in connection with
the work of an establishment by the principal employer
through a contractor, he merely acts as an agent so there
will be master and servant relationship between the principal
employer and the workmen. But where a workman h hired
in or in connection with the work of an establishment by a
contractor, either because he has undertaken (o produce a
given result for the establishment or because he supplies
workmen for any work of the establishment, a question
miglOC arise whether the contract is a mere camouflage as
irt Hussainabhai Calicut’s case (supra) and in Indian
Petrochemicals Corporation's case (supra) etc; if the answer
is in the affirmative, the workmen will be in feet an employee
of the principal employer, but ifthe answer is in die negative,
the workmen will be a contract labourer.*'

[*PTH-W*3(ii)]

ot vnm* $ vtf iq, jooMflnrzQ, 1930

2127

In the tostantcaee foe workmen haw not bten hired
in correction with the work of a contractor but they have
been tired by the management for (he work of the
respondents. So fat foe Instant cue then is contract of
sendee betwrai the prificipel employenmd foe workmen.

TbeC<KUdtutkniB<iKhiiidginentofSU«l Authority
of India is squarely applicable in foe instant cue. la JT
2001 (7)SC 268 hh« been lwtd font “|2I(5) On f issuance
ofprohibilknnotiBcatkni under Section 10(1) pffoeCLHA
Act prohibiting employment of Contract Labour or
otherwise, to an industrial dispute brought IOC before it
by any contract labour in regard to conditions of service,
the industrial adjudicator will have to consider foe question
whether (he contractor has been interposed either on foe
ground of having undotakem to produce any given result
for foe establishment or for supply of contract labour for
work of foe establishment under a genuine contract or is a
mere rusetemouflnge to evade compliance with various
beneficial legislations so as to deprive foe wotfcen of foe
benefit thereunder. Iffoe contract is found tube not genuine
but & mere camouflage, the so-called contract labour will
have to be treated as employees of foe principal employer
who shall be directed to regularize foe services of foe
contract labour in foe establishment concerned.”

It has been held in this erne that whether there is
prohibition of contract labour or ofoerwiae the industrial
adjudicator will ha veto consider the question and incite
the contract appears ruse and camouflage to evade
compliance with various beneficial legislations the » called
contract labour wilt have to be treated as the employee of
foe principal employerand he fonU be directed to regularize
the services of foe contract workers.

Engagement of contract woiken for perennial and
regular nature of job b prohibited. Tbestfawege work is a
perennial nature of job. So long u the respondents exists
these would be need of sswennen,»the work toofaxultog,
eonttonous and penminl in nature tor siudi worit contract
workers cannot be employed..

According to well reraganimtion defimtiffliof contra*
ftqnegmemientffiragivmiesuk. The resuh should be visfole.
Contract labouten canbc engaged forfoe work of enmnetor
only jpd nut for the work of any establishment. to the praam,
case the week is of foe establishment and not of the
conuuor. The lens supply of labour by a cortr&ctor is
aplnst hmnn dignity. No cue can be a supplier cf human
labour to any estoblishment It is foe duty of State to give
employment to its citizen and not of the contract™*.
Contractors cannot afply labour to any establishment

That workmen have worked under the control nd
s^Mtvisianoffoeaian^enem. They hove not been nqjplied
by any other attractor. There is no contract ogrement as
per foe pmviirm of foe CLfla Act, 1970-The workmen
perfumed regular natwo of wmk. They were engaged by foe
■osnagetnent and foey worked according to their (factions.
They received monthly payment from the management

In foe tacts and ctrmnutmces of the case there is
master and servant relationship between foe management
and foe workmen and foe workmen have completed 240
days in every year of foeir employment u per even foe
admtsshm of MW 1 in his onremtiiMtloa. Thus, foey
have served foe m anag ement for240 days every year during
foe tenure oftheb employment There is master and servant
relationship between foe management and the workmen.

This issue is decided accordingly.

ISSUE NO, 2

It was submitted from foe side of foe management
that foe workmen ire independent contractors,

■1 .

My attention was drawn to foe Judgment of Hon’ble
Delhi High Court WP(C) No. 7032 of 2005. The Hon’ble
Court has placed the reliance on the circular dated
20.03.1993. The workmen worked muter the direction of the
Engineer In-charge- In the abo ve circular foe management
directed foe authorities of CP WD to send foe list of such
daily rated muster mil workers engaged on hand receipt or
work order or any other basis defining the existing
government instructions ensuring fotealia termination of
services of all such workers who have not completed
24D days services to two consequetive years. The probable
demand requiring appointment of such workers may also
bo intimated to this Directorate, As such la foe circular of
1993 a complete but was imposed on engagement of
workmen on worit* order or band receipt and it was aim
directed that the list of those workers who have completed
240 days of services should also be intimated to the
directorate. The Hoo’ble High Court held that fop workers
engaged on work order basis shall also be daily rated
workers and provisions of Section 25 -F of the 10 Act, 1947
would be attracted..

The claimards have been continuously engaged on
work order basis. They worked under foe direction of foe
mauptMM. The management decided what ww to be
done ami how was it to be done. The time and mode of
work was decided by foe management

In foe ciremiiatmKies these ctoinaots are workmen in
viewofsectkn2^)offoc 10 Act, 1947,

This issue is decided accordingly.

ISSUE NO. 3

It was submitted flan tbs side of foe management
foattheWOTkm«wnre engaged as corXractort for ejeaniog
foesewerfaes-Eveatfit isfomwlfoatfoere isdhtna rotation
of employer and employna the workmen may be given
condensation in lieu ofrefnaWarnent

It was autontod from foe ride of foe workman that
compensation is not payable to caae* where an tmdertoktog

has become sick or it W been closed or h Is in oconomre

loss. It has not been established that foe bank b to economic
loss and it is a sick Industry, My attention was drawn by
the Ld. Counsel of the^orianan to 2000 LLR523 State of

222*

THE GA2ETTE OF INDIA; MAY 10 p 200&VAEAKHA 20 } 1930

[Part II—Sec 3(ii)]

UP nod Rajender Singh- The Handle Apex Court ordered
for reinstatement with full back wages as the services of
the daily wager cleaner who worked for 4 years was
dispensed with without following the procedure for
retrenchment. In the instant case also no retrenchment
compensation has been pakl This case law squarely covers
the instant case h It has been held in L97S Lab 1C 1668 that in
case service of a workman is terminated illegally the normal
rule is to reinstate him with full back wages.

My attention was further drawn to AIR 2002 SC 1313,
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that daily wager even
if serving fur a short period should be reinstated.

It was submitted from the side of the workman that in
the instant case Sections 25-F p C of the ID Act are attracted.
In section 25 of the ID Act it has been provided that if a
workman has performed 240 days work and if the work is of
continuous and regular, nature he should be given pay in
lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation, Et has been
held by the HorTblc Apex Court that there is no cessation
of service in case provisions of section 25-F are not
complied. In the instant case no compensation has been
paid to the workman. In case a workman has worked for
240 in a year and the work is of continuous and regular

nature be should be paid retrenchment compensation. In
case retrenchment compensation is not paid section 25-F
of the ID Act is attracted. There is ih> cessation of his
services, He is deemed continued in service in the eye of
law. In case there is breach Of section 25-F the service is
continued and reinstatement follows as a natural
Consequence. ID Act, 1947 has been enacted to safeguard
the interest of the workmen belonging to poor segment of
society. It appears that legislature wanted that such
workmen should not be harassed um wessarily so section
25 F* U, T and Clause 10 ofVth Schedule have been enacted.
The objects and reasons of ID Act, 1947 show that the
respondent management should not be permitted to indulge
in Ady unfair labour practice. The workmen should not be
engaged for years and then they should be removed all of
a sudden* There is provision of retrenchment compensation
for his removal. Retrenchment compensation is for
compensating him otherwise so that he can survive long
interregnum of unemployment. Tn the instant case no
retrenchment compensation has been paid.

It was submitted from (he side of the management
that the Hobble Apex Court in 2006 (4) Scale has put down
a complete ban on regularization and reinstatement.

The Hon ‘ble Apex Court has held that employment
can only be made on the basis of procedure established in
the* behalf envisaged by the Constitution. Equality of
cpfwrtunity isthe hallmark and the Constitution enshrines
affirmative action to ensure that unequal* are not treated
equals* So public employment should be in terns of
constitutional scheme.

It was further submitted that the Constitution Bench
Judgment ha3 afforded a right according to which the
government is not precluded from making temporary
appointments or engaging workers on daily wage?.

The Go has got no license to make always

appointment of daily wagers and to continue them for life

lime. Fixed term tenure appointments and temporary
appointments cannot be the rule of public employment. At
the time ofmakirgtemporary appouitments Articles 14,16,
21,23,226 & 309 are infringed. There is no constitutional
mandate that the government b at liberty to go on giving
fixed term appointments for the entire tenure of service of
an employee. The Government or Public Sector units cannot
continue incessantly to give temporary and fixed erm
appointments again and again. Since fixed term
appointments and temporary appointments are not
governed by any constitutional scheme, such
discrimination will amount to vicious discretion. The
Government or Public Sector unit will go on resorting to
the method of pick and choose policy and give temporary
and ad hoc appointments to their favorites and thus the
principles of equality enshrined in the constitution will be
given a go bye. Such is not the intent of the Hon'ble Apex
Court. However, in this judgment the provisions of the ID
Act governing the services of the workman have not been
declared unconstitutional. Reinstatement is the remedy
provided in the ID Act for breach of several provisions
enumerated therein or for breach of service rules provided
in various labour welfare Legislations.

Section 11 A of the ID Act stipulates that in case the
Tribunal is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal
was not justified, it may, by its award, ret aside the order of
discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the
workman on $uch terms and conditions* if any, as it thinks
fit or give such other relief to the workman including the
award of any lesser punishment in Lieu of discharge or
dismissal as the circumstance of the case may require*
According to this benign provision this Tribunal has the
authority to set aside the order of discharge or dismissal
and reinstate the workman on the terms and conditions as
it thinks fit.

A three Judges bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court
has held in 1993 - II - LLJ that termination of services affects
the livelihood of not only of the employee but also of the
dependents. So in case of illegal termination of service the
workman should be reinstated. Reinstatement should not
be misconceived as regularization. By the order of
reinstatement the status quo ante'of the workman is
restored. He is given back wages in order to compensate
him for his illegal disengagement. This is a special remedy
provided in ID Act and it has not been annulled and set
aside by any judgment of the Hobble Apex Court. The
provisions of the ID Act are still constitutional and they
are to be given effect too.

In care the workman is reinstated with back wages
the respondents have every right, alter payment of back
wages and reinstatement^ to retrench him validly as
following the principles of first come last go so that section
25, G & H of the ID Act are not violated.

These workmen have worked for 4 - 6 year* and it
has been held while deciding the issue no. I that there is
master and servant relationship and the workmen worked
under the control and supervision of the management. The
management is the master and the workmen are the servants
The workmen have not been paid retrenchment
compensation or one months pay in lieu of notice*

[*nrn—fo*53<H)]

tercn for Tpm : ^ 10 , iOO&^ira 20,1930

2229

From the above discussion it becomes quite obvious
that the workmen have been engaged for cleaning the
sewerlines. The work is of permanent nature, Contract
labour is prohibited for a work which is of continuous and
perennial in nature. Engagement of workmen as a contract
workmen by foe management is absolute^ illegal and
against the provisions of CLRA Act, 1970. The workmen
have themselves been made to sign work order. The
management by its circular of 1993 prohibited the
engagement of workmen on hand receipt basis or work
order basis. The workmen have worked for 4 - 6 years. The
work is at it) existing. lathe circumstances foe workmen are
entitled to reinstatement

This issue is decided accordingly.

ISSUE No. 4

It was submitted from the side offhe workman that in
view of 1966 LLI134, AIR 1991 page 173 and lu view of
Directive Principles ofState policy has confirmed in Article
30(d) of the Constitution a casual workman cannot be denied
the same salary of Class - IV employees when they
performed the same dudes on regular basis. There should
be eqnal pay for equal work and it should be treated as. a
fundamental right in $dvic* jurisprudence.

It has been held In (2003) 6 SCC 123 as under

"The principle of "equal pay for equal work" is nut
always easy to apply. There are inherent difficulties in
comparing and evaluating the wmk done by different
persona in different organizations, or even in foe same
organization. It is a concept which requires for its
applicability complete and wholesale identity between a
group of employees claiming identical pay scales and the
other group of employees who have already earned such
pay scales. The problem about equal pay cannot always
be translated into a mathematical formula.

It is obvious timn foe judgment that the principles of
equal pay for equal work cannot be applied everywhere. A
daily wager holds no post Scale of pay is attached to a
definite post. This workman was not holding any definite
post, so be cannot be compared with the regular and
permanent staff for equal pqy and allowances.

(thus been further be Id in (2093) l SCC230 as under

"Equal pay for equal work - applicability of the
principle o£ held, depends not only on foe nature or volume
of work but also on the qualitative difference in reliability
and responsibilities as well- Even in case of same functions,
responsibilities do make areal and substantial difference-
It is for the claimant of parity to substantiate a dear ctit
basis of equivalence and a resultant hostile discrimination
In absence of requisite substantiating material. High
Court erred in granting the NMR workera/dsily wagers/
casual workers parity in pay with foe regularly employed
staff merely on presumption of equality of the nature of
work -However, such workers, held, entitled to payment of
prescribed minimum wages.”

It hos been held in this case that equal pay for equal
work would depend upon not only foe nature or foe volume
of work but also on the qualitative difference as regards

reliability and responsibilities though foe fractions may
be foe same.

The workmen have worked as casual labours for 4-6
years. They are not entitled to Equal Fay for Equal Work.

This issue la decided accordingly.

ISSUE NO, 5

it was submitted by the management that payment
of full back wages is not foe natural consequence $fthe
onkr of discharge or dismissal being set aside. It has Men
held fat (2003) 6 SCC 141 font it is incumbent upon me
labour court to decide foe quantum of luck wa^s.

It has been further held in this case that payment of
back wages having discretioaaiy element involved it Is to
be dealt with the facts and circumstances of foe case.

No definite formula can be evolved.

It has been timber held in this case that payment of
backwages in its entirety is foe statutory sanction. In (2003)
4 SCC 27 foe Hon’bte Apex Court held that in vkwofdelqy
in raising foe dispute and initiating foe proceedings back
wags need .not be allowed. In the Instant case there is no -
delay at least on the part of the workman in raising the
dispute.

lu 197S Lab IC 1963 • three Judges Bench of the
Hon’ble Apex Court held that payment of full back, wages
is the normal rule. In case services have been illegally
terminated either by dismissal or efisdmrge or retr enchm e n t,
in such circumstance the workman it entitled to full back
wages except to the extent he was gainfully employed
during tbe enforced idleness. In the instant case the
workman was always ready to work but he was not
permitted on account of invalid act of foe employer.

In 2005 IV AD SC 39^-fhree Judges Bench of foe
Hon’ble Apex Court held that reinstatement with foil back
wages is justified. In this case Ibe workman has performed
more than 240 days work and he lyis been retrenched
without payment ofcompensalfoti and pay in lieu of notice.

The workmen are manual workers. They must be
doing some sort of work off and on. They are not employed
in any establishment. They must have been doing some
sort of work for their own survival and fw the survival of
their family, In foe facts and circumstances of the case foe
workmen are entitled to 25% back wages as there is delay
m raising foe dispute.

This issue is decided accordingly.

The reference is replied thus;

The act km of the management of Executive Engineer,
CPWD in terminating the services of Shri Rattan Lai and
Vijay Pal Sweeper, Seweimen respectively w,e.f 1.9.93 is
not justified. The management should reinstate these
workmen along with 25% back wages within two months
from foe date of publication of foe award,

The award b given accordingly.

Date; 31.03^003

R. N. RAJ, Presiding Officer

2230

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 10, 20C8/VAISAKHA 20 t 1?30

[Part II—Sec. 3(ii)]

^ K^fl, 16 31^1,2008
1M0.— JriPi* Emq aifqlwT, 1947 (m?
^)| 14) ^3 Hl<l 17 ^ ^

iwkrilDwitf ^ ^ tto fNNrcS

-ilk ddi STJW *f tnl^m ^AtilFW faqi^

itctr 3freftPrer aft 11 , ^

1W?TI ^ •fali (TR*f tlwi 45/95 ) III jmifcici 'fciol $,
W*H ^ 16-4-2008 TIM fW *HI

[it 153-4201 2/195 w- 3 n$ «nr &L \)}
3OT ^pIR, ^14i nftPFltl
New Delhi, the 16th April, 2008
3,0, 106Ql —in pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes die Award (Ref No. 45/95)
offfce Central Government Industrial Tribwial^um-Labour
Court No. IT, New Delhi ss shown in the Annexing in the
Industrial dispute between the employees in relation to
the nmagetnent of Central Silk Technological Research
Institute and their workmen, which was received by the
Central Government on 16-4-20Q&

(No- b42012/195^IR(DU)]
AJAYKUMAR , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER:CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TJUBUNAI^CIJM-
LABOUR COLiRT-K,NEWDELHI
Presiding Officer: R. N. RA1 !.D.Na45/l995
IN THE MATTER OF:

SIl Pradeep Barmola,

S/o. Sh. M.N. Baimola,

Type-S7 t New Forest FRI*

Dehraduo. —Claimant

VERSUS

L The Assistant Director,

Silk Technological Research Institute,
DeiBOfBtkm-cum-Training Centre,

Silk Board, 4 Special Wingh,

Dehradun,

2*Th*Dy. Director,

Central Silk Technological Research Institute,

Regional Office: Central Silk Board,

Gram; Rochipur Majra,

Dehradun.

3, The Director,

Central Silk Technological Research,

Central SilkBoard,

GamandiBilla, Bangalore. —Respondents

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L-42012/
195 j i 94*IR(DU) CENTRAL GOVERNMENT Dt >2-3*1995
has referred the following point for adjudication:

The point runs as hereunder:

u Whether the action of the management of Central
SilkTechnological Research Institute, Nation
Serculturc Project, Central Silk Board, Dehnufun in
terminating the services of Sh + Pradeep Prasad
Barrnola, S/o. Sli.KLN. Barmola* Casual Labour w,e H f
31-5-1993 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief
the workman is entitled"

The case of the workman is that he was engaged on
daity wages w.e.f. 16-7-1991 on a permanent nature of work
His services were terminated on 31-5-1993 illegally without
holding any inquiry. No show cause notice was given to
the workman before termination of his services. He has
worked for more than 340 days in every year of his
employment.

The case of the management is that the workman
was engaged as daily rated casual labour on casual nature
of work' He did not perform his duty sincerely and honestly.
He has been given warnings several times still he did not
improve, so his services were terminated.

The workman applicant has filed rejoinder. In the
rejoinder he has reiterated the averments of his claim
statement and has denied most of the paras of the written
statement. The management has also denied most of the
paras of the claim statement.

Evidence of both the parties has been taken.

Heard argument from both the sides and perused the
papers on the record.

It was submitted from the side of the workman that
no inquiry has been held against his un satisfactory work.
The workman was removed after giving warnings only.

The workman has admitted in his cioss^xamination
that he was a casual labour from 16-7-1991 to 31-5-1993. He
has also admitted in his cross-examination that he was
wanted three titties during hi s employment..

The management has filed all the warning letters,
some of which had been admitted by the workman. The
workman hasaAniffled the letter dated 22* KM 991, Ex. MW2-
He has not admitted letters dated 23-10-1991,28-5-1992,
26-2-1993 and 160*1993. He has admitted, Ex. MW 3 in
which it has been mentioned that the workman has been
warned severe! times for resuming his duties punctually
but he went away with the keys of the office. Thus, the
workman has admitted that several warnings were given to
him and once ho went away with keys of the office.

In the cross-examination the workman has admitted
three warnings given to him. He was a casual labour. He
was not selected after following the procedure of
recruitment A casual labour is not engaged against a
permanent post. He has no right to a post. In case the
management is obligated to hold inquiry in respect of every
casual labour there will be no end of inquiries Dqpartmental
inquiry is held against a regularly selected employee or
regular employees, The workman was a casual labour. The

[nFTii—sF*3(in] 10, Hws/fciwao, ism 2231

period of casual labour is treated as on probation. He has
admitted in his cress-eaaminfttiofl that tiree warning
weteghwn to him. Theworiamn was directed to be punctual
in his duties but he was opt abb to improve hii conduct,
so the management has rightly di sco n ti nued him.

The management was duty bound.to pay him
retrerohmem compensation c&lculrted@15 days far every
completed year and one month’s notice in lieu of pay. The
management has not admittedly made payment of
retrenchment compensation and pay in lieu of notice.
Section 25 F of the LD. Act, 1947 is attracted fin-payment
of compensation. His services were found not satisfactory,
so there is no question of reinstatement. The management
should pry him Rs. 20,000 (Rs. Twenty Thoraand Only)
by wry of retrenchment compensation and pay in lieu of
notice.

The reference is replied thus:

The action of the management of Central Silk
Technological Research Institute, NatfcnSeteulhee Project,
Central Silk Board, Dehradun m tenua tiling the services of
Sh. Pradeep Prasad Bannola,S/o. Sh. M.H Barmoia, Casual
Labour w.e,f. 31-5-1993 Is legal and justified. The
management should pay the workman Rs. 20,000 (Rs,
Twenty Thousand Only) by way of retrenchment
compensation and pay hi lieu of notice within two months
from fee dale of (he publication of the award.

The award is given accordingly.

Date :3l-3-2008

H N. RAL Presiding Officer

16 sifeuooa

WK 1061. lihliPl'h PtfeU OlftfrOT, 1947 (1947

m 14) m n * w+>K Tft.

"^T Pif^td dtinVPiti, fhaw, $ al-fda Tnmrc

ii,r$

7/96) 9l reiftw t, at e^Hi tRUR ^t 16-4-2006

^ urtrpn

[Tl ^-42012/212/94-3^ SIR (A^.)]

aaa Jw afinijl
New Delhi, the I6lh April, 2008

S.O, 1061.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Centra]

Government hereby publishes the A ward (Ref. No. 7/96) of
the Central Government industrial Tribunal-cum-Laboiir
CoultNo. II, New Delhi us shown in the Annexure, in the
industrial dispute between the employers in relation 10 the ,
management of C.P.W.D. and their-workmen, which was
received by the Central Government on 16-4-2008.

[No. L-42012/2l2/W-fR(Dtr)]
AJAY KUMAR, De* Officer

AJ*XXLR£

BEFORE TOE PRESIDING OFFICER:CENTRAL
INDUSTRIAL TRIBWSAUCUM-
LABOUR COUKT-ILNEW DELHI
Presiding Officer 1 R.N.RAI LD. No.07/1996

Complamt No. 07/2004
IN THE MATTER OF;

Sh. KafrCbaran,

S/o. Sh. Amar Singh,

C/b CP WD Mazdoor Union,

E-26 (OldQtr.X Raja Bazar,

Baba Kharag Singh Marg,

New Delhi. — Clamant

Versus

The Executive Engineer, .

CPWD. G-division,

EastBJoek-2, Level-II,

RJC. Puran, NcwDehi - 66. —Respondents

AWARD

The Ministry oflabour by its letter No.L -4201M12/
SN-IR(DU) CENTRAL GOVERNMENT Dt. 27/26-12-1995
has referred the following point for adjudication:

The point urns as hereunder 1

,D Whetherthe'Executive Engineer, G-Drvision, CPWD

was justified hi not regularizing the services of

Sh. KaliCharan, Sewermanw.e.f. 4-01.1991? If not,

to wtrat relief the workman is entitled.”

That Shri Kali Chanm workman was engaged as
Sewerman under G- Division ofthe above mana g e m e n t on
work orderw.e.f. 4-1-1991,

The workman applicant has filed claim statement In
the claim statement it hafbeea stated that Shri Kali Quran
workman was engaged as Sewennan under i G’ Division of
the above management on work order w.el. 4-1-1991.

That the above workman ts working under the control
of DirectoT General Works, CPWD, Named Bhawan, New
Defci

That the workman is performing his duties as
Sewennan as called by the management an Work Order
and the workman is doing the work under the direct
supervision of the Junior Engineer, Assistant Engineer and
also gelling wages directly from the CP WDManagetnent.

That the workman is daily rated workman on work
order and directly engaged by fee management and has
been performing the duties wider the drect control of above
management and fee payments are also made directly by
fee above management.

That three types of daily rated workmen are
performing their duties i,e. (a) Muster Rod, (b) Hand Recent
and (d) Work Older directly under the control of the

2232

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 10, 20G8/VAISAKHA 20, 1930

[Part []—Sec. 3(H)]

management and except the category of workman on work
Order as Seweiman.all the other wotkmen working on daily
rated in the categories of Sewemwn on Muster Roll and
Hand receipt, were getting equal pay for equal work in the
pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 as per the policy of the
management.

That dedal of equal pay to Shri Kali Charon, workman
b discriminatory and unlaw ful,

.That the Government of India, Central Public works
Department vide their order No, 38/2/B7-EC.X, dated
30-$-92 have sanctioned 8982 posts for regularization of
daily rated workers in compliance oftheorders of Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India.

That the management have regularised many Junior
persons to the concerned workman on the time scale but
be was discriminated after the order of Hon'ble Supreme
Court.

That the workman is also not paid equal pay for equal
work after the j udgement of Hon h ble Supreme Court, That
the workman is legally entitled to be regularized and paid
wages in tbe proper time scale*

(c) A ^probationers" is a workman who is
provisionally employed to ftll a permanent vacancy in a
post and has not completed three months service therein.
If a permanent employee is employed as a probationer in a
new post he may at any time during die probationary period
of three months be reverted to his previous permanent
post.

(d) A “badli" h a workman who is appointed in the
post of a permanent workman or probationer who is
temporarily absent.

{e) A ^temporary" workman is a workman who has
been engaged for work which is of an essentially temporary
nature likely tobe finished within a limited period.

(0 A '‘casual* workman is a workman whose
employment is of a casual nature,

(g) An "apprentice** is a learner who is paid an
allowance during the period of hb training.

XL XX ft

That as per the above Model Standing Orders, the
workman acquired the permanent status after completion
of 3 months service in the grade.

That (ha workman Shri Kali Charan has been kept on
daily rated on work Order only to deny him the privileges
and benefits that of a regular/permanent workman. That
non -regularization of services of the concerned workman
by tbe management of CP WD is unjustified oa well as illegal*

That tbe management has not been regularizing the
services Of the workman with a view to exploit him by
denying him the benefits and fruits of regular workman in
the time scale which is unfair labour practice under the fifth
Schedule ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947*

That as per Item No, 10 ofthe Fifth Schedule ofLD.
Act dealing with unfair Lahour practice, the Hon’ble
Parliament has disapproved the exploitation of workman
while inserting the amendments and the same has been
taken effect w.e.f 21-8-84 as under:

xn xx »<

*To employ workmen as l badlis" casual or
temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with
the object of depriving them of the status and privileges.
That the above workman is connected with the construction,
sanitation work and maintenance of buildings owned by
Central Government and comes under the definition of
Payments of Wages Act and so is also covered by Industrial
Employment (Standing Orders) Act and Rules made
thereunder.

That the workman has been performing his duties
relating to sanitation works, maintenance of doors and
windows and other related works which are of skilled nature.

That according to Model Standing Rules under
Industrial Employment Act, a workman having completed
90 days of continuous service deemed to have attained the
status of permanent workman and the management has
been wrongly denying the facilities to the workman and
there by discriminating him amongst the same employments
which is nothing than the hostile discrimination against
the workman concerned with this dispute.

That there are hundreds of permanent workmen
(Sewermtn)working in different divisions of CPWD and
keeping these concerned workmen on daily rated is
discriminatory and denial of equal status and this action of
the management is discriminatory and unlawful* That this
Hon'ble Tribunal under the Act is within its jurisdiction to
classify the workman by grades end set aside the hostile
discrimination in the matter of classification by grades of
the workman by the above management as per Item No.7 in
the . “Third Schedule" under Section 7A ofthe Industrial
Disputes Act* 1947.

That the action ofthe management in not regularizing
the services of the workman from the date of initial
employment is illegal os well as unjustified.

That the workman is entitled to be confirmed by way
of regular ization w.e.f. 4-1-1991,

Management filed written statement taking following
preliminary objections;

That the above said claimant have no focus standi
to file this claim against the respondent-management being
there is no industrial dispute between the parties.

That there is no relationship of employer and
employee and that of master and servant either existing or
otherwise exists between the claimant and the respondent-
management t.e, CPWD, l G' Division.

That there is no industrial dispute arise between the
parties and there is no relationship existing between the
claimant and the management as an employee and

[tfrTlI—TO 3 (ii)]

'ttriJUtT otti : ^ 10, 2008/41119 20, 1030

2233

employer, therefore, the present reference is not
maintainable and is liable to be quashed on this short
ground and ike claim of the claimant is not supported by
an sffitaritfhmfose die claim is not tnaamtoinebk. in the eye
of law and inthe Merest aftusticeatalL Thatfois court has no
jurisdiction to entertain sudi references being the reference
made in the present form is not maintainable and is not
entertabiablc, therefore, it is liable to be rejected/ dipniw ed,

That by virtue of the position of the applicant-
claimant and the status of-the applicant-claimant as a
contractor, be did not answer the description of the word
“workman" as defined in clause (s) of Section 2 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In view of the position of
the matter, foe application of the applicant-claimant is
utterly misconceived and the same deserve to be dismissed
ouuigbtly in limine.

That the above said claimant was engaged as a
contractor and he was awarded the contract for cleaning of
sewerlines on complaint basis and he whs never engaged
as an employee or a workman on daily wages and he was
never designated as a sewerman.

That the above said Claimant was engaged as a
coutraCtev and be is bound and governed by Chapter III of
contracts of C.P.W.D, Manual and the arbitration and
litigation cases of Section 3d of the said volume. Therefore,
when dispute arises between the parties then he can
approach the management to appoint tbe arbitrator only.

that without prejudice to the above, it is submitted
that tbe present dispute refend by tbe Government of
India to this honourable court/ tribunal for adjudication is
not an industrial Dispute as defined under Section 2<k) of
Industrial Disputes ^et; 1947 because it is not a case of
discharge, dismissal, ret renc hm ent or termination of the
services Of the Claimant. As already submitted above that
it ba case of contnetorahip which b not tame under the
peiYkwofdiehukiUTta] Disputes Ac^ 1947 and foe provision
of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not apply in this
case. Therefore, the present reference made by the
Government in that respect is without jurisdiction and is
liable to be quasbed outrightly by this honourable court

Thi workman applicant has filed rejoinder. In foe
rejoinder be has reiterated the avermenta of his claim
statement and has denied most of the paras of the written

Evidence of both the parties has been taken.

Heard argument from both the sides and perused the
papers on foe record.

From perusal of the pleadings of the parties tbe
following issues arise for adjudication:

1, Whether the workmen applicant has completed
240 days work during foe tenure ofhb employment and
whether there is employer and employee relationship
between foe management and the workman?

2. Whether tbe claimant bworionai in view of Section
2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

3. Whether the claimant b entitled to reinstatement/
ngutarizatiniti?

4. Whether foe workman applicant is entitled to Equal
Pay for Equal Work, to what amount of back wages foe
workman is entitled?

ISSUE NO. 1

It was submitted hum foe side of foe workman that
be was engaged as Sewerman under G - Division of the
above management on work order w.c.f. 04-01-1991. He
worked under the control of Director General (Works),
CFWD, N. Bhawan, Hew Delhi, The workman has
performed his duties as Sewerman as called by the
management on work order and he is doing foe work under
foe direct supervision of the ir. Engineer, Asstt. Engineer
and also getting wages directly from the CPWD
management. He is a daily rated workman on work order
and be was directly engaged by tbe management and has
been performing his dudes under the direct control and
supervision of die above management and foe payments'
are directly made by foe management.

It was further submitted that the management has
not followed tbe constitutional scheme of Equal Pay for
Equal Work. The Government of India, CPWD Department
vide their ortfe WW7- EC 10, dated 30-09-1992 have
sanctioned 8982 posts for rcgularizatioc. of doily rated
workers in compliance of foe orders of the Hon’bfe Supreme
Court of India. Maty juniors have been regularized. Non-
regiilarimtion of foe services of foe workman b arbitrary
and illegal.

It was further submitted that foe workman has been
performing the duties of sanitation, maintenance of
buildings owned fay foe Central Government. It was further
submitted font according to foe Model Standing Orders
after completion of 90 days of continuous service a
workman attains the status of permanent workman but the
management ha^been denying the same to the workman.

It was submitted from foe side of the management
that there is no relation of employer and employee and foot
of muster and servant. There is no industrial dispute
between the parties as there is no relation of employer and-
employee. The refere nce is not maintainable.

It was fiu+ier submitted that foe claimant worked as a
contractor and he did not answer foe description of the
word“wuitanen" as defined in clause (s) of Section 2 of the
I.D. Act, 1947. He was engaged as a contractor and he was
awarded the contract for cleaning of swerelines on
complaint basis.

It transpires from perusal of foe complaint that the
services of this workman was terminated on HH>I-20O3,
The workman has filed complaint No. 7 of2004 for illegal
termination of his services. Evidence has been led in the
complaint also,

2234

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 1Q P 2MS/VAISAKHA 20, 1930

[Pakt II—SBC,3(ii)]

Hie management has not denied anywhere the
working of the workman as Se woman from 04-01-1991 to
1S*01-2003. I| is also admitted to the management that the
services of this workman were terminated on 1X-01-2003
while pendency of the dispute in CG1T * 1 and the workman
has filed a complaint also. It has also not denied that the
workman b not working under the control and supervision
of the Jr. Engineer and Asstt. Engineer It is also not denied
that the workman has not been paid by the management
directly.

The workman has specifically slated in his cross
examination that he was provided wotk by the JE and Clerk
and he was appointed by the SDO, Sh. Vijay Pat Singh- He
was used to be paid through cheque as well as in cash by
theSDO,

From perusal of the documents it is proved that the
workman has worked under the control and supervision of
the JE and he has been made payment directly by the
management

It b settled law that even the contractual workers
engaged through contractor* for perennial nature of work,
becomes the employee of the Principal Employer. In case
contract is sham and ruse and in case it is found that a
workman is working under control and supervision of the
management and his services are integrated to the
management and payment to him is being made by the
management,

]tbasbeenheldin()992}4SCC llg/'Regulari^ation-
Adhoc/Temporary Govt, employees- Principles laid down-
Those eligible and qualified and continuing in service
satisfactorily for long period have a right to be considered
for regularization - Long continuance in service gives rise
to a presumption about need for a regular post - But mere
continuance for one year or so does not in every case raise
such a presumption - Govt, should consider feasibility of
regularization having regard to the particular circumstances
with a positive approach and an empathy for the concerned
person."

It has been held in 1997 AIRSCW Pago 430 that the
industrial adjudicator should decide whether there is valid
contract or it is a mere ruse / camouflage and if it is found
that the contractor is only a name fender the management
should be directed to regularize the workmen. In JT 2003
(1) SC 465 - the Hon + bfe Supreme Court has held that
industrial adjudication is appropriate remedy for the alleged
contract workers. In {2000) T SCC126 - the Hon 1 ble Supreme
Court has held that there are multiple pragmatic approach- 1
factors which should be considered in deciding employer
and employee relationship. According to the criteria there
should be control and integration- The management has
doubtless control over the alleged contractor's men as they
work in the establishment of the management. They are
integrated to the service of the management. There are no
terms and conditions of the contract so there is master and

servant relationship. The creation of contract labour is only
sham and camouflage and the employer cannot be relieved
Of his Liabilities.

In Pollock Law of Torts a servant and an ^dependent
contractor has been defined as under :—

The distinction between a servant and an
independent contractor Has been the subject matter of a
large volume of case-law from which the text-book writers
on torts have attempted to Jay down same general tests.
For example, in Pollock’s Law of Torts, (Pages 62 &63 of
Pol lock on Torts, L 5th Edn, > the distinction has thus been
brought out:

“A master is one who not only prescribes to the
workman the end of his work, but directs or at any
moment may direct the means also, or, as it has been
put, retains the power of controlling the work, a
servant is a person subject to the command of his
master as to the manner in which he shall do his
work,„„„An independent contractor is one who
undertakes to produce a given result but so that in
the actual execution of the work is not under the
order or control of the person for whom he does it T
and may use hh own discretion in thing* not
specified be forehand.,.."

In Salmond's Treatise on the Law of Torts the
distinction between a servant and independent contractor
has been indicated as under:—

*‘Whai then, is the test of this distinction between a
servant and an independent contractor? The test is the
existence of a right of control over the agent in respect
of the manner in which his work is to be done. A servant
is an agent who works under the supervision and
direction ofhis employer, an independent contractor is
one who is his own master. A servant is a person
engaged to obey his employer's orders from time to
time; an independent contractor is a person engaged
to do certain work, butte exercise hb own discretion as
to the mode and time of doing it - lie is bound by his
contract, bui not by his employer** orders.”

The lest regarding independent contractor and
intermediaries have been laid down in Hussainabhai, Calicut
V + The Alath Factory Thezhilali Union Kozhikode [AIR
1978 SC 1410 (3 Judges)] “the true test may, with brevity,
be indicated once again. Where a worker or group of
workers labours to produce goods or services and these
goods or services are for the business of another, that
other is, in fact, the employer. He has economic control
over the workers subsistence, skill, and continued
employment. If he, for any reason, chokes off, the worker
is, virtually, laid off- The presence of intermediate
contractors with whom the workers have immediate or
direct relationship as contract is of no consequence when,
on (thing the veil or looking at the conspectus of factors
governing employment, we discern the racked tfvtfr, though
draped in different perfect paper arrangement, that the real
employer is the management, not the immediate contractor,

1CL Wfft

fee-pffeegwl EDjekertifaKyje^lj be^^to^ytafcfv;
thfi seiiyipes offee Ctoyrm , jV(rf r ^ } „

■>■■■■■■' Stgageinefit of ddnWKt- wwha»> fav pteeeiii aHtod ■■

<<> ,Uf bos beep held ;

depe ndin g ocvtfae degree ef<uoseali»r]fcneedi& fee.type, ptobiWifcifeof: $t v

ofitdfctt&feefeedeaDdiiteMudfenUlK^ adjtdMeryillb^^

towbeoJabaur ksisledioa^oaate'.iMiet^isiiiQW^iiHMM ; the. .centra : *ppe#rs-i*i*o ^..-^gs^e^ i ift-ftfftdft *

real employe^Jtased paMifd&W, 3S*4&4? jwM^rAflf T ewgitowiwfe w™ I

the Constitution. The Court must he astute to avoid the coutiw*letoyrw^^ $£„

mtsehrefifed =achiev4 tBtf pftptise Of tie' l&WAnd hot be fee-pfiregwl uiqglt^h^the^P ^ ,

. •;' f; : ■ U* ■*-* ^ v>»

^This ci#e pMt has hed effing ^ toCrttstitthoo > Ihtgigejrietrt efdontmet waters^ fohpmnisliDd ^

regular nature tfjobte-pnfeib^

j^yyy jfj5 iff”**!*?- a pttfraiialntfun* *rfjob,fl* toni

ufull -"■ i_ m 1 . :\ a>| : j I w " ! V *■" i J ■ " ^ ■- . : " ■" " , -I : . ."■■■■ ' J - ^ -. ■": " K

1: tb&SBSgBIUF * 1 ^,

B™ft( Hdgrifthir - &et Aufeirfity of Indi*. it fei* been' 11 ' s,,ii^ j : if

i^ij.',, i'.y?i^~---' t ;■■/.' >>-i^yj‘._;y-:'r\*r n-^r :. According to well reorganization definition of

.■Hjr; i ;.;V-i_ i '-Q^, iv^.f-.;: >■. ,<l = ■ .-■■,■. ..^ ■ contract it is an a g t WiV t i Eiifo irglVftrt ftetfet/THSi Result

; ■: should be visible. Contract iabourerscen be traced fa i

-.::■ ^ f fee work of contractor only and hot for the work of any

employ er oc ww^ , w^mny ja^ as am oifeblisfifedht in fee prewrif cMsb 'SWtWk IS Bf the

2** W wlffornMetM stf^tri atfoifiadp diidtlfahnieiit Slid bbl: oftheiiiotrddbr^^

cinbe as^Herofli^ *>

j fcffi to is the duty of Stale to‘gi+^ef^dtfetttt f fe cithwnitodiiit*.

' of lb * W'ntm “™w^: to

.," /wfpjfipHt v for ; ;any w^rk^o|ffee'.^sl^blipbtoehV ■■ .-.■ *;!a;.T^ ; iyo

.' ys fttwMi t^e|;iihtfectist's^eif" :: :'i r ' It Lk : adudttedby dte manq^nteat thstthewwfafUftt
", ' caniauflsige ^^.^uateai3h£i]^a . wa* engaged m 04-01^1-9? h and hp iiBi wgrk<edl

anil ln ' t r et^dchtthi(dai^ ; C<iij^tfj^'x &isii' eontinuoualy tip to 2dG4. Diaiog fee ^ pendency of rttw>

iaipraj itc; If dii iihmner' tst W ntferenrt thh^pMflBineptille^ll^»nioT8d ttwh*Mtip»Mf i

workmen will be In feet an employee ofthe pdlDje^sr in30O4-violHthigsertlon33«f tt»®Apt,'d9il7.'si. ? I, iiuv!.

• * : ^wiiaiMa «nm« wm»m (*rtr

.:•••• >or vv.v,, >.:■■; rfmriar ydEtdnhd OUit*&T HitttiMheitinithh

in conneetieo with the work^a,cottttg<Wf bot JhWihtty#
been hhed by fee contractor ftrthe wont ofthe respondents.
Sblnthe ttihAt iwefeem istod^aet of urrteo bitween
theprtfclfr ^ aitnjHtiy^ ^ k:

1 TntoConiWWtjdiilJe^

of iW teMmateto

JT^C^sCMt^WilseettheiaOmt-ni 0)diU«Mi>iee

Act prohlbHlni; tthployiiMjht bf CottWaut teboor or
othetwMe;^ lit IndhshPiiir^ipdttliTwu^hflOC befbre it
by any oontmef labour hi regard to eondkions ofaervica^

wlMiflheir 'iftie 'qotiltaMitor nith^edeftbiiron fee

fnpiindii Koivis^^d4mBi^to-priSdi»6d J anriy jffvdnibfolt
^riAeSsh&IBIMtiUimit'cM^ ^f8r no^piiAy «r ii<MiAnk« £hlbiMir'dbr

tS^run^ wife VctriOUl

bsriefldM^liphtfHM'ib tb ftfdeprtvit fee woikenbf dw
bei rtBt feiife aafc r. ftfeeoMitruotis foubdtobenotgemdni
b«t*w^<anihnll^;feeso<hlMoifflt^
biyetdb*tteittdW'dmpU^eesofiliopriiteipaletapkyer
who 1 sholl be thweted to r^gidariw the rr/vtaer of the
oontmet labour In the wtHMfahnwnt cotue«tied; ; ■=

a peeetjnialnatiimtrf|ob. 9t kngaoflwefepmidhishegdnri -
them wouldbe need of sealrtty foiffewn;«0tbe wd* iawfo
exjstj^, c^pt^^^id por^oni^in n^nefbr si^WMk
contract woriwrs cahiiotbe.eraptqy^ ; ,

■ '■-*"-■ ■ ^ : ^r! ' J t J "J J'>'J 1

According to well reorganization definition of
contract it is an ag^tehiiehi‘fth’ Result

should be visible. Contract labourers can be
fee work of contractor only and not for the work of any
eStftbtyuridlit; fn fee- jjreiieilt' ettsbf ■ftW 'Wcrtt -18. Bf the
miablishmeh* Siidnbl: offee^tdbWdddr™^
oflabourby arortrattor isiaghirisi
can be a si^rHer dfHihiiiri hfodtfttb bny ^btfidkiMfek lt :>
is the duty of Slate iditlant atHtfckutM^

of lb* ^a^swtipQf-; <Pc«nra«!l 9 iiat nanrt^t. ^giply^l^ik^ur to

W.*feW«hm««r,r...- - ■: ,.V,;v:, ;; ■■ ; :

■■ : ■:if It is aditrittsdby fee managtmettt festttie wodfetelM
was: engaged' on; 04-ii3r»HiSt h and : bus. rworked!

eoBtinuoialy tip'to 26Q4* Diaiog fee ipandeitcy M rtl»>
teferench febttajfeganiertille^llpwniofedl^^
in 2804-violHthigset*tfiO3 3/pf feceffirAfa,'] 947 : : i . Art

' '‘IbeWiuiitifeinfetit WlfeeiS HW-e'febittisd 1 that fey*

Cfreuiir tettrrdMid 9^? Mfe engigeitierTfmyterk

didef'iyt^'lfeiil'Mailiit'lki^S'^ biMtraiefbhll^'iMs^
prohlbifedliy fee G^eftfeenC-Tbe #e«*wii1fefrk«irtatd*
uhdwfee control aod ioperviakitr of'fee rtBrtag«at«t.J
MW ' i bw ridt deiiied fee dbfetlifedtii 'iv&fkmgof fee*
wdftmmi ftbm 1&91 ^ 2064/ m%6ifcni» ^ ‘twt : fei-'
btde^ehdei^copt^^ w dhectiort rffee-

feife^etfeafeiWni" siDrthm^M^ltiytf4nde^^
between feb ' Tndatfetffeimeft wiifd vvs^kmua ■ofe’fet
workman hu competed 340 ^1^ lit d«*y y##r«f hid
*W®hWbfl®; : -v 'i ■)■, f..;,. --i. f r -r; ii.v i :.i jTtf pidi ?,■ ; : jjv;; i

1 '-' 1 .- ThiirbaiM if decided scwofeigly^i^i, j -^i
ISSUE No; t ■■'•"< '••-■■■'■■■ ; -' !1 --'it i- ^

; Ii wi sn MMi

LblH

The workmen wowed imdwfee feb ( Bn|^|totf

Incherge, In fee above cindiiar'ilK mt^bjteinMt tfndim
fee aufecdiies ofCPWDtoieaddMiHfeofeoch daily tated
Uufer niU wOfkeraea#si«! oeiefldf weei^fflriffl&F
Or My other basis; defining ihi *wrth%rtao¥*i»fe^

1520 OU0B-1B

2236

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 10, 2008/VAISAKHA 20, 1930

[Pact II— Sec. 3(ii)l

instructions ensuring Inter alia termination of services of
all such workers who have not completed 240 days services
in two consecutive years. The probable demand requiring
appointment of such workers may a bo be intimated to this
Directorate. As such in the circuhrof 1993 a complete ban
was imposed on engagement of workmen on work order or
band receipt and it was also directed that the list of those
workers who have completed 240 days of services should
also be intimated to die directorate. TbeHon’bie High Court
held that the workers engaged on work order basis shall
also be daily rated workers and provisions of Section 25-F
of the ID Act, 1947 would be attracted

The claimant in this case is workman in view of
Section 2(s)ofthe ID Act, 1947.

This issue is decided accordingly,

ISSUE NO, 3

ft was submitted from the side of the management
that the workmen were engaged as contractors for cleaning
Iheaewerlines* Even if it is found that there is direct relation
of employer and employee fbe workmen may be given
compensation in lieu of reinstatement

II was submitted from the side of the workman that
compensation is payable in cases where an undertaking
■has become sick or it has been closed or it is in economic
loss. It has not been established that the bank is in
economic loss and it is a sick Industry, My attention was
drawn by the Ld. Counsel of the workman to2000LLR 323
State of UP and Rajender Singh. Hie Hon’bk Apex Court
ordered for reinstatement with full back wages as the
services of the daily wager cleaner who worked for 4 years
was dispensed with without following the procedure for
retrenchment. In dm instant case also no retrenchment
compensation has been paid. This case law squarely covers
the instant case. It has been held in 197$ Lab IC1668 (hat in
case service ofawotionan is terminated illegally the normal
rule is to reinstate him with full back wages. My attention
was further drawn to AIR 2002 SC 1313. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held that daily wager even if serving
for a short period should be reinstated.

It was submitted from the side of the workman that in
the instant case sections 25 F, G oftho ID Act are attracted.
In section 25 of the ID Act it has been provided (hat rf a
workman has performed240 days work and if die work is of
continuous and regular nature he should be given pay in
lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation.

It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that
time Is no cessation of service incase provisions of section
25 F am not complied. In the instantcaseno compensation
has been paid to the workman.

In case a workman has worked for240 days in a year
and the work is of continuous and regular nature be shouH
be paid retrenchment compensation. In case retrenchment

compensation is not paid section 25F of the ID Act is
attracted. There is no cessation of his services. He is
deemed continued in service in the eye of law. In case there
is breach of section 25 F the service is continued and
reinstatement follows as a natural consequence.

ID Act, 1947 has been enacted to safeguard the
interest of the workmen belonging to poor segment of
society. It appears that legislature wanted that such
workmen should not be harassed unnecessarily so Section
25 F, U, T and Clause lOofVth Schedule have been enacted.
The objects and reasons of ID Act, 1947 show that the
respondent management should not be permitted to indulge
in any unfair labour practice. The workmen should not be
engaged for years and then they should be removed all of
a sudden. There Is provision of retrenchment compensation
for his removal. Retrenchment compensation is for
compensating him otherwise so that he can survive long
interregnum of unemployment, in the instant case no
retrenchment compensation has been paid.

ft was submitted from the side of the management
that the Hon’ble Apex C ourt in 2006 (4) Scale has put down
a complete ban on regularization and reinstatement. The
Hcn’bie Apex Court has held that employment can only be
made on the basis of procedure established in that behalf
envisaged by the Constitution. Equality of opportunity is
the hallmark and (he Constitution enshrines affirmative
action to ensure that unequals are not treated equals. So
public employment should be in letms of constitutional
scheme,

it was further submitted that the Constitution Bench
Judgment has afforded a right according to which the
government is not precluded from making temporary
appointments or engaging workers on daily wages.

The government has got no license to make always
appointment of daily wagers and to continue them for life
time. Fixed term tenure appointments and temporary
appointments cannot be the rule of public employment. At
the time of making temporary appointments Articles 14,
16, 21, 23, 226 and 309 are infringed. There is no
constitutional mandate that the government is at liberty to
go on giving fixed term appointments for the entire tenure
of service of an employee.

The Government or Public Sector units cannot
continue incessantly to give temporary and fixed term
appointments again and again. Since fixed term
appointments and temporary appointments are not
governed by any constitutional scheme, such
discrimination will amount to vicious discretion. The
Government or Public Sector unit will go on resorting to
the method of pick and choose policy and give temporary
and ad hoc appointments to their favorites and thus the
principles of equality enshrined in the constitution will be
given a go bye. Such is not the intent of the Hon’ble Apex

C^Pin—W®¥3(li)]

qratolTFUl lO, 2008/%W20,1930

2231

Cowt. However, m this judgment the pro visions of the ID
Act governing the services of the workman have not been
declared unconstitutional. Reinstatement is die remedy
provided in toe ID Act for breach of seven! provisions
enumerated therein or for breech of service totesprovided
la various labour welfare legislations.

A three Judges bench of the Hon’bk Apex Court
has held in 1993-D-LLJtbaftennfDstknofserriceeaJlecls
the livelihood of not only of the employee but also of die
♦ dependents. So incaac ofillogsl terpimation of service die
wofauu should be reinstated*

This workman was engaged as casual labour w.e.f.
4-1-1991 and when be raised tin dispute his services were
illegally terminated by the management in 2003. The
wortanmhflsworioed continuously from 1991 to2003.

It bus been held in Constitution Bench Judgment in
Urns DevTs case that In case a temporary employee has
trashed tor 10 yean even temporarily mid not without too
oiden of the Court die government should consider die
feasibility ofiegnlarialiiin. Hus workman has admittedly
worked from 4* 1-1991 and up to2004, so be has rendered
continuous service for 13 years. The Hou’ble Apex Court
has directed for regularization of the. services of the
workman who have completed 10 yean of service. Hits
workman worked continuously for 13 yean thereafter his
services bevebeeo terminated, so fins workman k entitled
to leinstirteiiwnt and regularizMiotL.

This issue is decided accordingly.

ISSUE NO. 4

Itwas submitted from the aide of fee workman that fat
view of 1966 LU134, ADI 1991 page IT3 end fat view of
Directive Priucqjles of State Policy has confirmed in Article
30(d) of the Constitution a casual workman cannot be
denied the emne salary of Class -IV employees when they
pe rfor med die same duties on regular basis. There should
be equal pay for equal work and it rbould be treated as a
fimdanental right m service jurisprudence. *

It has been bdd m (2003)6 SCC123 asunder:

‘The principle of'equal pay for equal work' b not
always easy to appiy. There are inherent difficulties
in comparing and evaluating the work done by
different pencils in different organizations, or even
in the same organization: It is a concept which
requires for its applicability complete and wholesale
identity between a group of employees claiming
identical piy scales trod the otter group of employees

who hove already canted such pay scales. Hie
problem about equal pay cannot alw^s be translated
toff q miftfmrtkd Ffttiwifr

It is obvious from fbejudgment ftattheprinciplea of
equal pay for equal work cannot be applied
everywhere. A daily wager holds no post Soale of

pay is attached to a definite post. This workman was
not holding any definite post, to he cannot be
compared with tte regular and permanent staff for
equal pay and allowances ”

Tth m bccn fiulher held in (2003)15CC250 aa under i

“Equal pay for equal work - applicability of toe
principle of held, depends not only on the natare or
volume ofwcrk but also oofoe qualitative difference
in reliability and responsibilities as wdl -. Even in
case of same fractions, responsibilities do make a
real and substantial difference - If is for the claimant
of parity to substantiate a clear-cut basis of
equivalence and a resultant hostile discrimination -
In absenefc of requisite substantiating material. High
Court erred in granting (he NMR worfcers/daiiy
wagon/ casual workers parity in pay with the
regularly employed staff merely on presumption of
equality of the nature of work - However, such
workers, held, entitled to payment of prescribed
minimum wages.”

It bas been held in this case that equal pay for equal
work would depend upon not only tte natue or the volume
of wotk but also on toe qualitative difference as regards
reliability and responsibilities though the functions may
be tte same.

The workman was engaged on work order basis. He
was not a regular employee, so he is not eat Wed to Equal
Pay Far Equal Wotk.

It bas been held intteother issues that the workman
has worked for 240 days every yeardaing the entire period
of his engagement His services were illegally termi na ted
on 18-1-2003 whiletoc reference was pending. The workman
is a manual worker. He must be doing some sort ofwork off
and on. In the circumstances toe workihaE is entitled to
50% back wages from 18-1-2003.

This Issue is decided accordingly.

The reference is replied tons:

The Executive Engineer, G- Division, CPWD was
not justified in not regularizing toe services of Sh, Kali
Charan, Sewer man. This workman is entitled to
reinstafoneni along with 50% back wages and regularization
of his services since toe date of termination of his services
i.e. IS* 1-2003. The management should reinstate tte
workman w.e.f. IS-1-2003 and pay Mm 50% back wages
from IS-1-2003 end regular late his services w.e.f.
18-1-2003 within two months from the date of the
publication of the award. Complaint No. 07/2004 is decided
accordingly.

The award is given accordingly.

Date: 31-3-2008

R.N. RAI, Presiding Officer

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 10, 2008/VAISAKHA 20 r I9 j0

[Part TT—Sec, 3(Ii)]

2228

^fa#,16«lfa r 2008

• = .' 1062.—4{iPl+ (iww SlfalWT, 1947 0947

4>l 14) 17 ^ 3ipw "^f, w»r

art* It*, mPwta ^ itisfo # 'flgg Fi^hnJf afr
$ Tm, ai^r*r 3 a?leilPi+ H
*R3»TC4f|til(j|* 3ffawT/5re-4Nl<rf4, ^ ^ (^

57/2007) ^ ^ f, # ^TT ^

16-4-2008 ^ w?r isir *rn ■

W T^-100I2/44/2007-3n|aiR (A^>J
3PP[ ijHK,

New Delhi, the t6th April, 2008

3,0. 1062.—In pursuance of Section [7 of the
fyiduacrial Disputes Act, 1947 f]4 of .1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the' Award (Ref. 57/2007)
Cent. Govt. Indus. -TrLbunaJ-cum-Labour Court, Chennai
as shewn in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the employers in relation to the management of
3u^mutendent of Post Offices and their workman, which
wit received by the Central Government on 16-04-2008.

(No, U40D12/44/2007-IR (DU)]
AJ AY KUMAR, Desk Officer

:U ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTR.\L GOVERNMEIVT
[ftDUSTRlAL TRlBCNALrCUM-LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI ;

: , Thursday, the 31st January, 2008

Present :KJAYARAMAN p
Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTENe, 37/2007

{En the [natter of the dispute for adjudication under
clause (d) of sub-section (I) and sub-section 2(A) of
Section JO of the industrial Disputes Act* 1947(14 of 1947),
between the Management and their workmen]

/ \ t BETWEEN

Sri j. Shanmugam ■: Petitioner/1 Party

AND

This Superintendent of Post Offices: Respondent/
Dfe^ostp Dharmapuri Division II Party
Xformap^

APPEARANCE:

For the Petit! oner ; Mis* R. Thamarai Selvan &

O- Raman

For the Management : None

AWARD

The Central Government* Ministry of Labour vide its
Order No. L-400J2/44/2^

the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

qi Whether the action of the management of

Superintendent of Post Offices, Dharmapurt in

terminating (he service of their workman Sri J.

Shanmugham w.e.f. 17-1-2000 is legal and justified. If

not d to what relief the workman entitled to? "

2 r After the receipt of the Industrial Dispute, this
Tribunal hai numbered it ai ID 57/2007 and issued notices
to both sides. The petitioner appeared through an
advocate and filed Claim Statement Though one Asstt.
Superintendent of Post Offices represented the Respondent
for the first two hearings, he was not appeared before this
Tribunal for subsequent hearings nor any advocate
appeared for the Respondent. Hence* the Respondent called
absent and set ex^parte,

3. The allegation in the Claim Statement of rhe
petitioner are briefly as follows:

The petitioner was working as Branch Post Master
in Mampatli Village in Dliarmapuri District. And he was
working in the Respondent Management for 23 years.
Based on a false complaint, the Respondent issued charge
memos dated 3 0-9-1999/5-10-19 99 for which ah enquiry was
conducted The Enquiry Officer has he Id that |he petitioner
has admitted the charges and concluded die enquiry. On
the basts of the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority
imposed the punisliment of dismissal by its order-dated
] 7-1-2QQG. For the same occurrence, a criminal proceedings
for enquiry in CC 265/2000 was conducted before the
Judicial Magistrate, Harur and after elaborate trial* the
Judicial Magistrate has acquitted the petitioner from the
criminal charges After thaq the petitioner has given a
representation to the Respondent Authority but with no
avail Hence, he has raised the dispute before labour
authorities and ihe matter was referred to this Tribunal
after failure of conciliation. Though, three articles of charges
were leveled against the petitioner, all the charges have
not been proved before the enquiry. The first charge
levelled against the petitioner is that he while working as
Branch Post Master* Mampatti* a cash of amount Rs. 811.75
was short on 14-12-1998, The second charge levelled
against the petitioner is that the petitioner failed to bring
into account Rs. 600 abngwith penalty Rs, 7 accepted as
deposit for the month from Nov. 1997 to Dec. 1997 in respect
ofRHX A/c No. 277910 of one Mr* K.K- Ramamoorthi, The
third charge framed against the petitioner is that he failed
to bring into account a sum of Rs. 14 which he accepted
towards RD Deposit from Dec. 1997 to Nov, 1998 in respect
of one Mr. Ponnusamy. The petitioner is ignorant and he

.. ffifc fct'WaR* * T=Df tffj >30WfltalW Mji f M3D ■ - . n' /■ f .»

■m*

iHs B ofa

co-employee and he is ignorant of the domestic ttftpfy

also
; well
.'(tie

.>^ 4 iA»'l have ,already /pnMted.iauVwttihe^tjhe
' Respondeat hdriinayi advocate* appealed foe the
Resp£>ni?m,:<hd Respondent waacelM abs^ and aet

•'.<R-p>rth v, j "i rtJV; ::i :'ii.Vi'<.‘\< ii; in~'j\ \

1!: ^ ; 1T - ^

.1^:. ■■■; i: J^V: ■] ^H/ST'/V/ r.'*T; ( h - :>PTi: !i-v ,<:i\ 'z'-Y;:' T : : :^ .

:,i\\ ■’■ Shatter that-Rti&po&deut

=l : ■- 'vM<4ia©ewee* to trstnlrttonjtthe se^toe&ofthe

'.■■Hi ■ ■■!■'■■■. rpetitioiNiwel;l7'l^!00P ktogda^justifted?
’ : ’ ; r: i f '(&''' rV '*£&tifeiiL ifejiief& etrUtfedifi? 7

1 : L' i'i iY' :V: : W'i si biY *?:'Yi V£ i ,r : ^ ■ - H

*'.■ ^ i V-- -=Jj:" 0':"j J SjfllWCjj'-u'? Ix-T H=V j |' r." .!■'! ;:'iff

btidirtit' ytoisekWimthhiitire.

/'ttotiibfer

ll: r : v >r

FWlffllF ?* 11 - UnjUDUVUIIH uu^uil U«U JJiw WOOVmPgw JUttwrt*

aw&cstte erto^'Wl^

‘Of; ■&Lfciil 'ij'i .it? i i Kfiii (iiJiiiiiL. JLr*£iis£3ifi/"t^

uw V J .- / Elt^tifiV ▼“ -r —- —

"wmifflit knowing anything froth the ^Isiebtferit ti i§ ids

to Eheli^ip fttiuj^fi li^liHficjlwtifitiner

5 ?^ i=iL J a i a iiiiiE ii i;; .hfi -aer&ninal

' Harur siSh ft^reiS&fiir&te WcjtfirV, Wife tf^ttitiedirf the
' cnfniniJ w(>^i^'tfei^^M]^4ikiicr ; cOritehflfcd ftial

y tSem t^syViit ^ 'ssrtUteHSP ^

before the labour afu*tioritiesVJ^^^Il^»j^i^6>S6d cntit'the

fcei^ifcMrt hanrtifaM^I&eeto this Tribunal to4*ty
by'itttp^petltioiihr^anteel^hb
Respondent remahied absent aid > siffee the fcsipoiideht

I find the petitioner's
,'jtjasp aeofjiji^dijas such I find this point in frvour of

the petitioner.

:ii*i

PatotNo.2

'f KSMt' «H ■%<->.J /jf I -fi n 3 HI,3JfOw; , „

Respondent Managent^^^rpiinstiiig the services of
the petitioner is not legal and justified. I find he is entitled
to relief oftotnrtafcuaenfc.Wkb rdtsrdito-ha^CWages, he is
entitled to the backwajres. With regard to contiouily of
service and ‘'eEftitSlarit 1 b^iheRetspondwt is
directed to give service,

1 ■ ijll, ' f '(tJiitdiMd'fo 0ie P7A: J, trhAi^e^ ? eSs(d tyf»ed : by him,
'totted me ttWtriJbh this

1 ^Ty 1 * ii:M r: ' ! :- ! 1)1

i W-\J. ;! ■>;! 1

K.JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Eaamined:-

For'the 1 Farfjfi^^tioner . . None. r "' ‘ 111

J >" i V?-'!;,.! A -:>..,: U if/I. i;; ■(': ■: ■ j V ! ’■■; :■';:

For the II Patty/Managemeiit None rfl -,! ;>;>■' : u !.-- :
Docununb Marked t- o ■; i ^ i 1 . ■

On the petitioner's side

Ex. No. Date Description

!l ; ’. _: L 1 ; 'l' j ;' r J j r V - ; _i j!--; ^

- — ■ ■ 111 |- ; -

i r } i x/li;: j.'3f; '> 1 h ?■■

From the Management side:

Ex. No.

Date

:vyr

Hf? 'J' tA

Description

r I j*J- y ^:'i y, -

2 oar-

Tmi&L jwTt iii:

14) ’Pi Wl 17

to («wn srrfst tl-100/2005)
t, ^rnKHj nd ;US^r4-2attS ,T?^13«MF^i3B. *f«

' :: *■■-• ■ ■■■ Ll ;h ' -'■ f - 3iR (r*o ]

:r: ^ s; ' '-■: ; 7 '" ,:? ;-r‘ J ::V : l'

'•'■* l;:r.!r'!Si.? .-.i (Ai'l > ) T j v'jrViftJUA

" ! '‘ i; T»e IR ii ; : 20e ft

£ ; <!! pb'stfilnW'^D 17 of the

IHdashM Di^ilttiActr 1 1P47 i{l4^ot (1947)./the Cdhtial
punish tfc*e. A*«d'R#t No.lv0. No.
■ -lO0i'2O05 : {tf'thfe ! Ceftts CittVl.^tfus i/^PrihiiBakitiittijabour
Court, Chamsi as shown in the Anrte*rlre> , in’lhh’iiriiio*tf ial

2240

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA ; MAY 10, 200S/VAISAKHA 20, 1930

[Past II—Sea 300]

dispute between the management of Airport Authority of
India (NAD)Chennai and their workman, received by the
Central Governor on 16-Q4-20G&

[No^L4 mi2/2/2005-IR{M)]
N. S. BORA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE (WRALGOVERNMIM
INDUSTRIAL imUNAIX1M-LABOUR COURT
CHEfWAI

Wednesday, the 21st November, 2007

Present: KJAYARAMAN,

Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No- tOQttOOS

(In tbe matter of the dispute for adjudication under
dame (d) of subsection {1) and subjection 2(A) of Section
10 of tbe Industrial Disputes Act, l947(l4of1947), between
the Management and tbeir workmen)

*

BETWEEN

A Venkalcaan ; Fetifiqner/l Party

120/1, Vembuli Amman KoiJ Street

Madipakkam

Cbennai-6D009l

AND

The Regional Executive Director : Respondent/!! Party
Airport Authority of India (NAD)

APPEARANCE

For the Petitioner M/s. K.M. Ramesh

For the Management M/s. Srec Associates
AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide its
Order No + L- U 012/2^005/1R(M) dated 2J-7-2W5 referred
the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication.

Tbe schedule mentioned in that cider is -

<0 Whether the demand of Sri A, Veukatesan for
reemployment by the management of Airport
Authority of India (NAD) P Chennai is justified
or not? I f not, to what relief i$ be entitled to 7

2 After the receipt of Industrial Dispute, this
Tribunal has numbered it as ID 100 of 2005 and issued
notices to both sides. Both aides entered appearance
through their advocates and filed their claim and counter
statement respectively.

3. Tbe allegation in the claim statement are briefly as
follows:

The petitioner joined the services ofthe Respondent/
Management on 14-7-1995 as contract workman Driver.
Initially he was appointed through a Contractor by name
Sri RV. Rajagopalan and he was in service continuously
upto 16-1-1996. Subsequently, another contractor by name,
Sri P + Thangavel employed the petitioner as a driver in the
maintenance and project department of the Respondent.
The petitioner worked continuously without any break,
whatsoever, since the date of joining even though
contractors have been changing every year or so. The
work performed by the petitioner is perennial in nature and
the so-called contract between the Respondent and the
respective contractors are mere paper arrangement The
work performed by the petitioner was directly controlled
and supervised by the Officers of the Respondent/
Management and tbe so called contractors have no role to
play except lending their names as contractors. Even the
payments are made directly by the Respondent. Thus, the
so-called contract between Respondent end (he contractor
are only pretence, nominal and sham and a make believe
arrangement. The contract is a mere ruse and camouflage
to evade compliance of various beneficial legislations and
in the matter of payment of wages. The Respondent is
adopting the device of contract in order to deny the
petitioner the status of regular workman of the Respondent
and the benefits available to the workmen directly employed
by him. Therefore, he has filed a Writ Petition before the
HtwVbte High Court of Madras in WPNo, 19442/97 to absorb
him and regularize his services from the date of his initial
appointment. While the matter was pending before the High
Court* the Respondent had terminated the services of the
petitioner without following the mandatory requirement of
Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the WP
was disposed of by an order dated 27-8-2003 giving liberty
to the petitioner to approach the forum under ID Act. Hence,
tbe petitioner raised a dispute before the labour authorities
and since the conciliation was foiled, the matter was referred
to this Tribunal for adjudication. By terminating the
services, the Respondent/Management has contravened
Section 25(F), 25(G) of the Industrial Disputes Act. While
the persons by name Sri Loganalhan, Meghanathon and
Prabbakaran who have joined in the services of the
Respondent as contract labour by the Respondent/
Management as direct employees as Drivers and Helpers
respectively, the Respondent/Managenfcnt have already
regularized foe persons who are engaged subsequent to
tbe petitioner as illegal and is against tbe provisions of
Section 25(G). Therefore, the action of the Respondent/
Management in removing him from the services is totally
illegal* arbitrary and unjustified Hence, for all these reasons,
he prays this Tribunal to order to reinstate him in service
with bflck-wage&, with continuity of service and with all
other consequential benefits.

3(H)]

wmm 14, ams/tarar 20 . i*»

2241

4. As rn galmt diit, die Respondeat ■ his cornier
utulcaiem contended th«t the AiiporiiAiriio%ofInda
iediidivgni He deties have conceived the ides of
modenuzadm of Ah Traffic Services at various Airports
ell over Indie end specific projects hove been designed for
modernization of the various Aiiperts including the
infrastructure*. One wnoog such project has been designed
forCbe&nriAiipoitfothcyeer 1994, Airports Aufoority
of India wanted to construct a new Air Deffic Services
ConpltthQnndAinNrtdacMdlh. )8crores.To
monitor the project implementation,*reparetc team was
formed by the Airports Authority of Indio, Cotporwe
Office and die Prefect team stated monitoring the progress
of the project on day-to-efay basil. The team on Manning
charge of project monitoring felt the necessity of the
req uir ement of some urinistaial staff tike Stmo-ann-Typist,
E^-OfBcoAssisteftlMver ((MV), Peonend Raftsman.
The Headquarters of the Respondent/Managmnaot also
approved the expendhm for this temporar y engagement
and permitted the Project Manager to call for quotation
from different agmeies for tbefauppty of required manpower.
After thorough scrutiny of the quotations, the least
quotation was accepted, Aceonfiagty, die contract was
awarded to it.V. R^ippHnon 14-7-1995, Ihepetfekner
was mteamoogthe ittsspowtr suppliedby the contractor.
The petitioner worked as o Driver for the project team, his
an wnhyutnit terns not involving and not Auctioning
unddr this JUspondentfoiauagemenL It was formed for a
spedfe tedeefproject mqdaannatitu ofAirTreffic Service
Complat at Chennai Hence, neilher dw eonlncfor nor the
petitioner bed any contract or relationship with this
Responded. Chi expiry of 90 days, another quotation was
calMandSriJLV. fegagopatan whoa the lead biddar was
awarded tbe oontrect foibeequamfy, one SriP. Thangxvei
became the mcceufol bidder and the coniroct was awarded
to Inn end the said Thangnvel wssswnrded foe connect in
the subscqqcnt Inda and in the next hid one Sri Sekar
becamethe successflil bidder and the contract wroowurded
to him and tatty foe project wu completed onl2-l1-2001.
The contract for supply of various cortingsmey manpower
continued tin foe project was completed through various
contractors. The categories mentioned bt foe contract are
not in penuanent requirement The contractor wqnpUcd the
required manpower only for 90 days at a time. The
Respondent U not nwme of engagement of any individual
particularly. Tbe petitioner was not at all employed by foe
Respondent The petitioner has not been engaged direct

the Airports Authority of Indie and foe teem has to be
I as in when foe project !* over.

period. When the dfod contactor viz. Sri Scfcw became tin
succeeeM contactor, foe petitioner woriend for only 4 days

purpose of tide cootrectfor the raesons best know to them.

In all these engagement, a lumpsum am o unt contract
m mh knak ai was paid tmy month to foe contractor by
foe project mo ni ttvfo g teem for aUfocseiviotaicwdgnidby
the contractor. Tbe petitioner was terminated by the
contactor at his daendon, in foe year 1998 though the
coronet ■‘iwiiMiri upto 2001 till the completion .of fee
project All peymentswere made only to contractors,
Further, foe work p e r fo rmed by foe petitioner is neither
permanent nor perennial in nature. The cases of Sri
ra gpiwfoMi, Mcgjjunudiiii and Fnhyuno mentioned
by die petitioner are entirely different as they had been
engaged, as caroal labour in Ahpoita Authority of India
against the pennaoemfregular vacancy. Their sendees were
regularized as mandatuy in the taws wbereas foe petitioner's
engagement was only as contract labour end foe contract
for a subsequent period cannot be considered for
regnbufzatton. Since foe petitioner wm not etnpkiyed by
the Respondent, the gnukii of his wniimn^e does not

VtKi IHfrwCOPOBCtwlliB Ofly Bf lBC

period end ss and when the project was over, the prefect
mon u on nt m toqibw b w ma uxy mn w hxv
original position. Htintie, for all these rfcuObs, the
AtspoDONii prays tnu uk emm nay do Quvmssni wm

COBtU,

j t Agiin, tbe ptfkiwitr Id his rejoinder yfttfmtiiT
alleged, it is fidse to allege Ibst foe petitioner was engaged
for s particular project, is for from troth. At no stretch of
imagination, it can be, said to be of temporary nature. Tbe
fog book/trip sheet maintained for the jeep owned by the
Respondent and which was friven by the petitioner would
prove tbrt the petitioner w» uot engaged for the project
work but directly by foe tUspoadcTOl^nageuieiit. All
payments ware nude directly to , foe petitibner 'by the
Respoodent. The force co-wcriarien mentioned in foe claim
statement were woridogalong^^
aUegpd corotactors and performed foe work ofDrim like
that of petitioner. The action of the Respondent/
Management tn denying foe seme privilege to the petitioner
is hi bknty,illogal,haict, licprayxwi sward may be passed
inhlsfovoar, *

The points for dntonninteionero:

(ij Whether foe demand of the petitioner for re-

. justified?* . ■ ^

(s) Towhatrefiefiibo entitled to?

& Util cane « robed by tim petitioner to m umpky
him-In the Reepondeot Menngapual with bechwagea,
continuity of service and all other attendant and
eenseqnentiel benefits. The case cf. the petitioner. is that
be joined the sendee* of Respondent Managemem on
147-199J as a contract workman (Driver), Though the
contractors ware changed, be was ccptiMioni|y weriting

2242

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 16, 2008/VAISAKHA 26, 1930

[Part II— Sec. 3{ii)]

without any break and the nature of worit he has done is
perennial in nature. He further alleged that though it is
alleged that he was a contract labour, the so called contract
between the Respondent Management and the alleged
contractors are mere paper arrangements and the
contractors have no role to play except lending their name
as contractors. Even the payment of wages are paid directly
. to hiiiiby the Respondent Management and the so called
contractors have never turned up to die work spot and it is
only the Officials of the Respondent Management who
extractwfrrk from the petitioner directly and therefore the
so called contract between the Respondent Management
and the contractor?; are only a pretence, nominal arid sham
and a.snake believe arrangement. Since die Respondent
Management is adopting this device of contract in order to
deny the status of a regular workman to the petitioner, the
petitipnerbas filed a Writ Petition in Hon'bleHigh Court in
W.P. No. 19442 of 199? praying the Respondent
Management to absorb him and to regularize bis service
from the date of his initial appointment But to his sinpise
during the pendency of the the Writ Petition in February,
1998, the Respondent has terminated the services of the
petitioner without complying with the mandatory
requirements of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Subsequently, the Writ Petition was disposed off by order
dated 27*8‘-2003 giving liberty to him to approach the
fbrum created under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Therefore he has raised the dispute and It was referred to
ihiiTrfbunal.

7. But, as against this, the Respondent contended
thereisno relationship of Master and Servant between the
petitioner and. the Respondent Management. While
mpdetmiration of the Air Traffic Services at various airports
ail: oyer India, the Airports Authority of India has
sanctioned specific projects for modernization for Chennai
Airport and specific funds have been allotted for the
specific project and time schedule has been framed for
commissioning and completion of the project. Similarly, in
the year 1994, Airports Authority of India wanted to
construct anew Air Traffic Service complex in Chennai ata
cost ofRs. 16.00 crones for which tenders were floated and
M/p. Hindustan Steel Construction Ltd., a Public Sector
Undertaking was the successful bidder for the project
construction. Further to monitor the prefect implementation,
■separate team was formed by Airports Authority of India,
Corporate Office which required some ministerial staff like
Stenp-cum- Typist, Engg.<Office»Asstt Driver, Peon and
Draftsman and furthermore the Airports Authority of India
approved the expenditure for this temporary engagement
to be met out of the contingency funds for the project and
the Project Manager called for quotation from different
agencies for supply of required manpower. Accordingly,
the contract was awarded to one Sri. R. V. Rajagopalan on

14-7-1995. Subsequently, it was extended on two occasions
and in one occasion, one Sri. P. Thangavel became
successful bidder and the contract was awarded to him on
9*1*1996 and he was successful bidder for seven periods.
Subsequently, one Sri S. Sekar became the successful bidder
add he was awarded the contract during 1996. At last the
project was completed on 12-1! -2001. None ofdie categories
mentioned in the contract was a permanent requirement
constantly throughout the period of the project and all
these categories are intern littetit. The contract entered into
by the Project Manager team with various pasties for various
activities has come to an end when the project was
completed. The petitioner was hot at all employed*by the
Respondent Management and he has not been engaged
directly by the Respondent Management at any point of
time. Since the Project Monitoring Team not being a regular
department of Airports Authority of India, the team has to
be dismantled as and when the project was over, permanent
ministerial establishment cannot be created for the
temporary period. The petitioner's services are disengaged
by one of the contractors and this Respondent has nothing
to do for the disengagement of contract labour by the
contractor concerned. The petitioner was worked under
contractor, Sri S, Sekar only for 4 days during the contract
and the said contractor disengaged him for reasons best
known to him and the petitioner. Since the petitioner was
engaged by the contractor for a specific period, there is no
question of appointing the petitioner in regular service or
terminating him from the service.

S. Since the petitioner alleged that bas received
wages only from the Respondent and since his contention
is that only the Officers of the Respondent has given the
work and the so called contractors have not given any
instructions for the day to day work, he has ti» establish
these facts with satisfactory evidence, In this case; in order
to establish his contentions, the petitioner produced 5
documents and examined himself as WW2. The first 2
documents viz. W1 and W2 are the petition filed by him
before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner in 2605 and the
reply fried by the Respondent Management for the petition
Ex. W3 are the copy of the trip sheets of.the jeep of the
Respondent Management and with registration number
TN22A7282 from the year 1995-1997. Ex W4 b the logbook
for the year 19^7 for the jeep TN 22 A 6863, Ex W5 is the
copy of the order engaging Sri Logan at han on casual basis
passed by the Respondent. As against this, on this the
side of the Respondent, one Sri K. Gunssekaran, Dy, General
Manager {Civil Engg, Department) of Respondent
Management was examined as MWl and 31 documents
were marked. The Respondent's documents are the
sanction order given by the headquarters of the
Respondent Management for expenditure fra engaging
ministerial stalTfor the project work and also foe letters of

[qinn-^aWStii)]

WW wra 10, 2008/^nW20, 1930

2243

correspondence between the contractor and the
Respondent Management for appointing the contractor
and also for renewing their contract. Out of the 31
documents, the petitioner produced Ex. M30,the Technical
Sanction and also the Measurement Book of the said project
woik. On behalf of the Respondent, it is contended at not
paint of time;, die petitioner was engaged by the Respondent
Management directEy. The contractor alone has paid the
wages for the petitioner for the work he has done. No
Supervision was done by the Respondent Management
and it is only the Contractor who has supplied the
manpower for the temporary project work.

9. In this case though the petitioner has produced
the logbook and trip sheets but on production of these
documents it cannot be said that the petitioner was
engaged by the Respondent Management directly. On the
other hand, the Measurement Book produced the
Respondent Management squarely shews that on each
period the Respondent authority has sanctioned the amount
for the contract work done by the contract labourers.
Though the petitioner alleged that wages were paid by the
Respondent Management directly, be has not produced a
single document to show that wagea were received by him
from the Respondent directly. Further, be has not produced
any document-to show that he has bean engaged by
Respondent Management directly or appointed as Driver
under the Respondent Management Though, the teamed
counsel for die petitioner placed much relianceon the copies
of trip sheets and copy of die logbook produced by the
petitioner, it cannot be said that by these documents, the
petitioner has established that he has been engaged by
the Respondent Management directly because every
Government vehicle must have the trip sheets and logbook
for dwmanitcnBnce of die Government vehicle. The Driver
nf the vehicle Is to maintain tills logbook and to sigh in the
trip sheets for using the vehicle by Govt officials. Though,
the petitioner alleged that be is a Driver ofthe Govt, vehicle,
he has not established that he has been appointed fay the
Respondent Management dlmtiy. On the other hand, the
Respondent has established before this forum that they
haw floated tender to supply manpower Iwcfnrlm g die
Driver for foe temporary project work and tile project has
been closed as per schedule and the contract few supply of
manpower has already been dosed. When such is the case,
the Respondent is.to establish dint it is ou|y die Respondent
who has etgagedfho petitioner directly and the contract is
only sbtm and nominal for the purpose of denying his
legal rights. But in this case, the petitioner has not
established this fhet with any satisfactory evidence. The
teamed counsel for the petitioner farther contended, one
S/Shri Loganadum, Meghanothan, Sc Prtbhakaran who
have in service ns contract labour are alongwith the
petitioner have been absorbed by the Respondent

Management as tegular employees as Driver and Helpers
respectively and some of tire persons who are engaged
subsequent to the engagement of the petitioner have all
been regularized in service pud they are still fat service and
thus the Respondent Management has contravened Section
25-G ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, But on die other hand,
it is the contention of the Respondent Management that
foe said persons viz. S/Shri Loganothan, Mughanatfaan &
Prabhaksran are employed as Casual Labourers under die
Respondent Management and they have been absorbed
m the regular vacancies and it is contended ^hat the
petitioner has never worked as Casual Labourer under the
Respondent Management he has worked only as a contract
labour under the contractors and under such
circumstances, the appointment of those persons cannot
be compared with the petitioner. I find much force in the
contention of the learned counsel for Respondent. Further,
the Respondent has also produced documents. Ex. M27,
Ex. M28 ft Ex. M29^ which arethepartfetriara gfvai by the
Respondent Management with regard to employment of
S^Shri Frabhakaran, Meghanathan as Casual Labourers on
daily wage basis. Therefore, in this case since the petitioner
has not established that the contract between the
Respondent Management and the contractor are sham and
nominal and since he has not established that he was under
the control of the Respondent Management directly, 1
cannot accept die contention of the petitioner that (he
contract was sham and nominal document and it was taken
by foe Respondent only to refuse his legal rights. The
learned counsel for the Respondent has placed reliance on
the judgement of tire Supreme Court, SECRETARY OF
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS VS. UMADEVI,
2006,4 SOC, PAGE 1 end argued “In that case, the Supreme
Court has dearly stated the status of temporary employee
do not have right to regular orpermanent public employment
and further held temporary, contractual, casual, adhoc or
daily-wage public employment must be deemed to be
accepted by tire employee concerned folly knowing the
nature of it and the consequences flowing from it Further,
he argued that the Supreme Court in recent judgentf nt in
2007, 1, SCO, PAGE 408, INDIAN DRUGS *
PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. VS. WORKMAN, DPLLTD.
end argued that the Supreme Court in that case has held
“tiie Court camot create a post whether non-existing nor
issue direction to absorb or regularize temporary
employment nor continue them in service nor pay their
salary of regular employment as these are purely executive
or legislative functions and it farther held such questions
cannot be decided in Court on basis of emotions and
sympathies but must be decided on legal principles”. In
this case since h is established that the establishment is
only a temporary establishment and since the petitioner
was engaged as a contract labour in a project work, the
Respondent Management cannot absorb the petitioner In

1626 GliOS-ie

2244

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 10, 200S/VAISAKHA 20, 1930

[Pabt [I—Stc. 3(ii)]

any regular vacancy and the Respondent Management
has get separate Recruitment Rules (RR) and if any vacancy
arises, it should be done according to the rules framed
under RR and as such the petitioner cannot be employed
intbe Respondent Management. In this case the petitioner
bas not established that he has been appointed by the
Respondent Management m any one of the regular vacancy
temporarily and he has not established the fact of the date
Ofhis engagement he has been under the direct control of
the Respondent Management and furthermore he has not
established the fact with any satisfactory evidence that
the contract entered into between the Respondent
Management and the contractor are sham and nominal. As
such, I find this point against the petitioner.

Point No. 2

Hie next point to be decided b this case is to what
relief the petitioner is entitled to?

10. In view of my foregoing findings that the
petitioner is not entitled for reemployment, 1 find that the
petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this dispute.

11. Thus, the reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P. A., transcribed and typed by him,
c or re c ted and pronounced by me in the open court on this
day the 21st Nov., 2007)

K. JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the I Party/Petitioner WWI Sri A, Venkatesan
For the U Party / Man agement MW 1 Sri K. Gunasekaran

On the petitioner's side

Ex. No. Date Description

BtWf 10-1-2005 Petition filed by the first parly before
the Asstt. Labour Commissioner
(Central), Chennai

EX. W2 4-8-2005 Reply filed by die first party before
the Asstt. Labour Commissioner
(Central), Chennai

Ex. W3 - Trip Sheets for Mahindra Jeep TN-

22-A-7282

Ex,W4 - Log Booh of the year 1997 for Jeep

(Vehicle) No. TN-22-6883

Ex,W5 7-9-1999 Order engaging M, Logan athan on
casual basis

For the n Party/Management:

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ml

14-12-1994

Sanction letter in Ref. NAA/MAS/
MOD/1 /ENOC(C)

M2

17-4-1995

Letter N A A/MAS/PROJECT/EE(Cy
95

M3

26-4-1995

Letter in Ref. HE/9/NAA3/411

M4

13-6-1995

office Note Ref. AAI(NADyEngg./
Proj/EE (C yMan power

M5

14-7-1995

Letter in No. AA1(NAD)/MAS/
E E (C)/ P RQ J/S -5/95/1 from the
Respondent

M6

14-9-1995

Letter in AAl(NAD)/MAS/PROJ/
EE(C )/M ANT #5/17-119

M7

15-9-1995

Letter in A A1/N AD/M AS/(MOD)/
WORKS/ENGG(C)/]316

M8&

M9

4-10-1995

Office Note N 0 . AAi(N ADJ/MAS
PROJ/EE(C)/MANP/S -6/95/1

MU)

13-1-1995

Letter No. AAI(NAD)/MAS/EE<C)/
PROJ/S-6/96

Mil

8*1-1996

Letter No. AAi(NAD)/MA5/PROJ/
EE(CVMANP/S-7/95

M12

9-H996

Letter No. AAI(NAD)/MAS/EE(C>-
PROJ/S-7/%/160

M13

16-7-1996

Letter No. AAI(NADVMAS/EE<C)-
PROJ/MANP/S-13

Ml 4

17-10-1996

Letter No. AAl{NAD)/MAS(MOD)/
EE (O PRO J/MAMVS-14/510

M15

15-1-1997

Letter No, AAI(NAD)/MAS/EE (C)/
MANP/S-16/609

ML6

27-3-1997

Letter No. AAI(NAD)/MAS/EE (C y
MANF/S-17/730

M17

014-1997

LetterNo. AA1(NAD )/MAS/EE (CV
MANP/S-17/735

MIS

154-1997

Letter No AAI(NAD)/MAS/EE(C)/
MANP/S-17/12

M19&

M22

8-7-1997

Letter No. AAI(NAD)/MAS/SE (CV
MANP/S-lS/l 15(A)

M20

15-7-1997

Letter No AA1(NAD)/MAS/S E (Cy
MANP/S-18/129

M21

3-10-1997

Letter No. AAI(NAD)/MAS/SE(Q

t^ipin—w*3<i9]

io ( 2008^fiW20> 1934

2245

17 *ta,200R

m&L 1064.—aldlPnrft^K afePppr, 1947 (1947
14) MW 17 ^ SIJHW *f, 4H*Wi i^cfl

($PH|$6 44'iR<(H SrfMfiS ^ 4 N 4 Mu* slllr J'I4 j 8«4W(I
* *h, Njft ^ diWifl* ftMR * tlWR
dfoilfqqi 4||V4>^l, ^'hld (tiVI 78/2006) ^
!W>lRurf <wil ^ ww ^ 17-4-2008 ^ MIW
iwwi

New Delhi, the 1 7th April.2008

S.O. 1064.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14of 1947), the Central
Govenmert hereby publishes tbe Award (Ref. No. 78/2006)
of Ole Cent. Govt Indus. Tribimd-cum-Labour Court
(Th ermal as shown in the Arvnexure in the Industrie L dispute
between the management of Neyveli Lignite Corp. Ltd.,
and tbelr workman, received by the Central Government on
1744008.

[No. L-22012/203/2005-IR (CM-II)]
AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ATf/EXtHE

BEPQKCTHEC^nitALGOVERNMENT
iNDUynOALTfUBUNAL^UM-LABOtlR COURT
CHENNAI

Thursday, the 10th January. 2008
Pmnt! X. JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer
INDUSimAL DISPUTE Nte 78/2006
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause
(d) of sub-section (1) end sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
the tnduatrnl Disputes Act, 1947( 14 of 1947), betweeathe
Management of Airport Authority of India and their
Workman)

BETWEEN

SriA. Amabaj iParty/Pettiioner

Vs.

The Director (Personnel) Neyveli II Party/Respondent

Lignite Corpn. Ltd. Neyveli

Nfey*efr6P7«OI

APPEARANCE:

For the Petitioner M/s Balm Haridas&KKamatchi

Sundaram

For the Ma na gement M/s N.A.K Sarnia,

N. NlthiyanandamA Meenakshi

ftmrtmim

AWARD

Hie Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide its
Order No, L-22012/203/2005-IR(CM-U) dated22-08-2006

referred the following industrial dispute to tills Tribunal
for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

’Whether (he action of the Management of
Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. b tmoinatieg
the services of Sri A.Amalraj w.e.t 04-08*2003
is just, fair and legal? if not, to what relief is the
workman entitled?"

2, After the receipt of industrial dispute, ihis
Tribunal has numbered it as ID 78/2406 end issued notices
to both sides. Both sides entered appearance through their
advocates end filed their claim and counter statements
respectively.

3. The allegation in the claim statement are briefly as
follows.

The petitioner joined the services of the Respondent
Corporation as Industrial Worker Grade-n Trainee on
01.07.1996 and he tins directed to work as Industrial Workers
Grade-II in the Telecom Department While so, he was
served with an order dated 07-12-1998 in which h was
alleged that the petitioner has secured the job by
suppressing that his brother Sri A. Anthony Raj was
employed in the corporation and he was asked to give an
explanation, Even though he has given his explanation,
the Respondent authorities have not satisfied with the
explanation, ordered for a domestic enquiry to be conducted
against him. Though the Respondent Corporation has
engaged a legally trained person he was not allowed defend
himself with die assistance of the lawyer, thus, the enquiry
as conducted by the Enquiry Officer is In violation of
principles of natural justice, Further, when die petitioner
requested tbe Enquiry Officer to summon his brother Sri A.
Anthony Raj and also requested to summon crib of the
member of (he selection committee who interviewed him
before granting appointment on compassionate grounds
but the Enquiry Officer has refused the request made by
the petitioner. The action of the Enquiry Officer in foiling
to produce the witness requested by the petitioner vitiated
the enquiry. The petitioner's brother has got his job by
merit and he has left the family even when his father was
alive and he was never considered as a member of the
fondly by his father. Even in the medical book which was
given to avail the medical benefits extended by the
Respondent Corporation to the dependents and family
members, (he name of Anthony Raj viz. the petitioner's
brother is not included. The said Anthony Raj even, in die
year 1991 left tbe family and had been living hb.own life
without looking after the family of petitioner's father and
the entire family's responsibility foil on the petitioner.
Therefore, die petitioner has no intention to suppress any
fact. While so, (he Enquiry Officer held in a mechanical
manner that the petitioner suppressed the fact of his elder
brother's appointment in the Respondent Corporation. The
Disciplinary Authority without applying his mind has come

[4 TJjfT-22012/203/2005-3n$ am (# tpi-II) ]
3R7n rfte,

2346

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY (0, 2008/VAISAKHA 2G P 1930

[Part II—Sec, 3(b)]

to a conclusion that the findings of ihe Enquiry Officer h
a correct one and imposed the punishment of removal from
service without notice. The Disciplinary Authority and
also the Appellate Authority has not considered the fact
that petitioner's brother is not a dependent of the petitioner's
father. Therefore, ihe question of any suppression does
not arise at all. Without considering these aspects* the
Disciplinary Authority imposed the capital punishment
which is not valid in law. Further, in the case of one Sri Ah
S ivakumar, V. Sravanan, A, Joseph Xavier, S. Setbu Sridhar,
R. Gnanavel; F. Selvaraj and M. Sundaramoorthy who axe
all employees, obtained appointment on compassionate
grounds when (heir brother were also working in the
Corporation, but in their case, the Respondent
Management" has imposed only the punishment of
stoppage of two increments and censure. But in the case
of the petitioner, though the petitioner's brother was not
part of the family and not a dependent, the Respondent
has imposed the extreme punishment of removal from
service. Therefore, the order passed by the Disciplinary
Authority which was confirmed by the Appellate
Authority is illegal and contrary to law. In fact the
punishment of removal is grossly disproportionate to the
charges alleged against the petitioner Hence, for all these
reasons, the petitioner prays this Tribunal to pass an award
holding that the order of the Disciplinary Authority and
also the Appellate Authority are illegal^ arbitrary, contrary
to law and consequently a direction from this Tribunal to
reinstate him in service with full back wages, continuity of
service and all other attendant benefits.

4, As against this, the Respondent in his counter
statement alleged that the petitioner's father Sri A,
Arokiasamy who was working as Technician Grade-I was
died while in service on 3(M 1-1995. On his demise, the
petitioner applied for employment on compassionate
grounds. Under the scheme in existence of the Respondent
Corporation, no member of the family of the deceased
should be employed in the Corporation while seeking
employment on compassionate grounds. Tbe petitioner
having known that hi$ elder brother vi*. Ah Anthony Raj is
already employed in the Respondent Corporation as
Industrial Worker Grade-1 suppressed the fact and made
false declaration to the Respondent Management and
thereby secured employment on compassionate grounds
on 24-06-1996. The Respondent having come to know of
the mischief played by the petitioner, issued a charge memo
dated [7*12*1998 and after proper enquiry and after
affording opportunity to the petitioner by following
principles of natural justice ultimately dismissed the
petitioner from service taking into consideration the gravity
of the proven misconduct. The employment on
compassionate grounds is a concession given by the
Respondent Corporation to the family of the deceased
employee on ful fill ing the conditions of the scheme. S ince
the petitioner, in violation of the conditions of (he scheme

secured employment by unfair means, he was not entitled
to any relief. The suppression made by the petitioner
amounts to misconduct of fraud and dishonesty, giving
false information and an act punishable under the law read
with Standing Orders- 14(1)B of the Respondent
Management and therefore action was taken against him.
For the memo, though the petitioner has given an
explanation, the explanation given by him was not
satisfactory* a departmental enquiry was ordered to be
conducted. In his claim statement though die petitioner
alleged that the Presenting Officer was a legally trained
H person 1 \ this ai legation was not taken by the petitioner
before tbe domestic enquiry. Therefore, the allegation of
Prejudice or disadvantage of having been defended by a
co-workman is an afterthought in ihe venture of the
workman to wriggle out the situation of the proven
misconduct and hence it Is not valid. Even in the submission,
the petitioner has given an undertaking that he w ould abide
by the action of the Management in case his statement
was found to be not correct. The suppression of information
which otherwise would have the petitioner ineligible for
appointment was well established in (be enquiry by the
documents submitted by the petitioner himself and his
mother. Therefore, the charges framed against him are well
substantiated by documents submitted by the petitioner
himself and the findings of the Enquiry Officer is well
established. The non-examination of the selection
committee members in the enquiry who recommended the
selection of the petitioner under such circumstances is not
necessary and the enquiry was held in a fair and proper
manner and it is not vitiated as alleged by the petitioner.
The petitioner wilfully suppressed the fact of the
employment of his brolhcr Sri A. Anthony Raj in the
Respondent Corporation with an ulterior motive to secure
employment against the rules by submitting false
declaration. This amounts to misconduct involving fraud
and dishonesty. The rules governing compassionate
employment do not exclude the wards of the deceased
employee from the definition of family members securing
employment in the Respondent Management prior to the
death of the said employee or those of wands living
separately from the family of the deceased employee. The
petitioner cannot harp on the punishment imposed on other
persons. Those disciplinary action on delinquent
employees initiated on the facts and circumstances of each
case and in defter ent context in this case, it has been clearly
established that the petitioner totally Jacked integrity since
he has deliberately committed acts of dishonesty, fraud
and an act punishable under law and hence the removal of
the petitioner is totally justified. For all these reasons, the
Respondent prays that the claim may be dismissed with
cost.

5. Again the petitioner in his reply statement
contended that the allegation of suppression of material
facts by the petitioner is without any basts since Ihe eldest

[TOTH—W30i)]

WWHTOT :R# ID, zoosAsn® 20 ,1930

2247

Son of AroJriasamy was never considered to be a pant of
the family, The petitioner has stated like that in (he
declaration for the reason that the brother of the petitioner
may be a kgal heir of tire deceased Arokjasamy for which
the Corporation would have insisted upon tire legal heir
certificate in the manoertothe interests of the Corporation
they would have got a letter from Anthony Raj as he is an
employee of the Corporation to avoid any claim from other
legal heirs. This will not establish that a brother who has
left the family and who is living separately was supporting
the petitioner's family at the time of compassionate
appointment of the petitioner. The allegation that rules do
not exempt any category is not correct because rules
themselves provide for the employment on compassionate
grounds. The Respondent Management was Mb' aware
of die fact of the petitioners brother was also onploycd
and there was no Suppression by die petitioner, further,
no justification has also been given by the Respondent as
to why they have been treating the petitioner differently.
Now this Tribunal has got every power under Section-11 a
of the ID Act to set aside the order of dismissal by
exercising its power. Hence, he prays an award may he
passed in his favour.

Points for (ktemiritkm arc:

CD Whether the action of the Respondent
Management for te rminatin g the services of the
petitioner w*£ 04-0 8-2003 isjust, fair and legal.

00 To what relief ihe petitioner is entitled ?

Point No. 1

6. The admitted case of both parties b the father of
the petitioner viz. Arokiasamy was an employee of the
Responded Man^ementand be was died m the year 1996
wfdle be was in service and the first son ofArokiasamy viz.
Anthony Raj has been appointed by the Neyveli Lignite
Corporation (NLC) on merits in tbe year 1991 and the
petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds in
the year 1996. The learned counsel for die Respondent
contended the Respondent Corporation having a scheme
for employment to the wards/dependeuts of the deceased
employee! on compassionate grounds and as per the
scheme no other member of die deceased frunily should be
in employment of the Respondent Corporation or in tbe
canteen or in the theatre in any capacity. Hie object of
providing the scheme for compassionate grounds is to
enable the family to set over die sudden fin social crisis
due to tire sudden death of sole bread earner- hi this case,
though (he petitioner was appointed on compassionate
grounds in the Respondent Management, the petitioner
while he has submitted his application,be has suppressed
the materia] fact that his elder brother Sri Anthony Raj is
working in the Respondent Corporation which clearly
shows the mala fide indention of the petitioner somehow
securing the employment in the Respondent Cwpogtfion
suppressing the vital information intiw scheme. It is further
argued that the petitioner has categorically stated in his

declaration that there is no other family member is working
in NLC and only basing on these particulars furnished in
Ifae application and the statements given by the petitioner
in the declaration and his mother, appointment was given
to the petitioner on compassionate grounds, and therefore,
the petitioner who has suppressed tbe material facts
intentionally is not entitled to get any relief in this ID. In
order to support his contention the Respondent marked
19 documents which are circulars issued by the Respondent
Management and also the enquiry proceedings taken
against tbe petitioner.

7. As against this, the learned counsel for the
petitioner contended that the compassionate appointment
in the Respondent Management is given to the employee's
family to tide over the crisis owing to death of the bread
earner. In this care, though it is alleged Anthony Raj viz
the brother of the petitioner was appointed by'the
Respondent Corporation and he is a member of the family
offai Arokiasamy, the saifl Anthony Raj was appointed by
theRcspoftdeatCofporatioiiori 7-1-1991 on his own merits
after being sponsored by Employment Exchange. The said
Anthony Rty vvho after securing employment left the family
on his own and this fact was not disputed by the
Respondent Corporation. Since, the said Anthony Raj
having left the home in the year 1991 and since he was not
treated as part of ihe family and only because of this,
Arokiasamy, father of the petitioner has not included the
name in his medical book ofttoe Corporation. On tbe death of
Arokiasaniy viz, ibe father of the petitioner, tbe family was in
distress and ihe said Anthony Raj having left the family
much prior to the death, was not part of die family and,
therefore, the petitioner has not mentioned the said Anthony
RtU asa member of die family in the application. Therefore,
there is no suppression on the pert of the petitioner more
particularly there is no wilful suppression for securing die
employment oo compassionate grounds. The learned
counsel for the petitioner firther contended that even in tbe
circular maked by the Respondent Authority as Ex.M4 which
is a circular dated 19-01-1990 and which has been issued for
the employment to the wurdadependents of Ihe deceased
employees, in the 2nd para it is d early tneotiooed that with a
view to give speedy relief to ihe wards/depeodents of the
deceased employees, the following course of action wit] have
to be henceforth followed:

(Q As soon asan employee dies while in service, the
details of the wards/dependents as available in
the service records as well as by enquiring the
members ofthe family are to be collected.

(3) They are to be checked with Medical Identity
Cards and P.F. nomination and gratuity
nomination available with the unit personnel etc.
etc. Further, in 4th para each details with the
application from the wards/depordents, it is to be
mentioned:

(a) Name ofthe deceased employee

2248

[Part ]i —Sec. 3(ii)l

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10* 2008/VAI5AKHA 20 T 1930

(b) F + F.Number

(c) Division, designation and date of death of the
employee

(d) Normal date of retirement

(e) Name of the claimant

(0 Relationship with the deceased employee

(g) The name and relationship of other members
of the family to the deceased employee

(h) Identification marks

(i) Educational qualification/technical quali¬
fication

(j> Experience, if any.

Only in the Annexure, it is mentioned as general
conditions that no other member of the family should be
employed in NLC or in the Industrial Canteen, Amaiavathi
theatre etc, in any capacity. The learned counsel for the
petitioner further contended since the scheme was
introduced as a welfare measure and since it is introduced
to provide an appointment to a member of the deceased
employee to help the family of the employee on the death
of the employee and since the petitioner was the only
member on whose shoulder the responslbiity to maintain
the family fell, he has made an application and it is dearly
stated by the petitioner that his brother Anthony Raj after
securing the employment has left the house and has been
living on his own and he was not a dependent and therefore
he was not considered as a part of the family and that is
why his name has not been included in the Medical Card
issued by the Respondent Corporation and it is also
admitted that Anthony Raj was also issued a separate
Medical Card by the Respondent Corporation* under such
circumstances, there is no suppression of material fact and
that too a wilful suppression of the material feet It is his
farther argument that the other employees of the
Respondent Management viz, one K. Sivakumar whose
P,F, No- 37798, one Saravanan whose P.F. No. 39801* one
Joseph Xavier whose P.F. No. 37853 and one SethuSridhar
@ S> Kolanchiappan whose P<F. No. 37877 and one
Gnanavel whose RF. No. 37354 and one Sundaramoorthy
whose P,F. No, 39175 who have all appointed on
compassionate grounds when their brothers were already
working in the Corporation and the Corporation has taken
action against them has imposed only the lesser
punishment of stoppage of increment and also the
punishment of censure on them. But in this case, even
though the brother of the petitioner was not a part of the
family and who was separated even while his father was
alive, the Respondent has taken a different view and has
imposed extieme punishment of removal from service which
clearly amounts to discrimination in the matter of
pmishment apart from arbitrary exercise of powers. He
farther argued that in any event the punishment of removal
b grossly disproportionate to the charges alleged against

him and this Tribunal has gat every power under Section
11A of the ID act to interfere with the quantum of
punishment and impose ie&ser punishment or to set
aside the order of punishment imposed by the
Respondent Management. The learned counsel for the
petitioner examined the petitioner as WW1 and also marked
5 documents viz. Ex.Wl to Ek.W 5 which are the orders
passed by the Respondent Authority in the case of Joseph
Xavier, Gnanavel, in the case of Sethu Sridhar, in the case
of K, Sivakumar and in the case of Selvar^k But again the
learned counsel for the Respondent contended that the
learned counsel for the petitioner on 14-05-2007 made an
endorsement in the Claim Statement to the. effect that the
petitioner is not challenging the enquiry proceedings and
restricted his dispute in respect of quantum of punishment
imposed by the Respondent authorities* therefore, under
the proviso contained in Section-11A of the ID Act, the
Tribunal has only to rely on the materials on record and
shall not take any fresh evidence iti relation to the matter.
Since the petitioner invoked Section 11 A of the Act, this
Tribunal shall not take into account the Exs.WI to Ex.W5
which are not marked in the domestic enquiry and this
document cannot be taken into consideration far invoking
Section 11A of the tD Act. Further more, even apart from
the argument* the punishment given to the various persons
as found in Ex,Wl to Ex.W5 were not appointed on
compassionate grounds and the petitioner has specifically
admitted this feet in the crossrexaminBtfeHb therefore, the
persons under Ex.Wl to Ex+W5 stands on different footing
and reliance on these exhibits is luitenablsn Therefore, the
plea that similarly placed persons were given lesser
punishment is not sustainable.

8, But again the learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that it cannot be said that the petitioner has
produced a fresh evidence before this Tribunal because
the exhibits produced show the discrimination exercised
by Respondent Authority and therefore the petitioner has
got every right to rely on the documents and to say that
similarly placed persons were given lesser punishment for
similar offence* Further, he argued in all these cases marked
In the Exs. Wl to Ex. W5, it is stated that only because o f
suppression of the fact that the brother of the concerned
employees even though working in NLC, the fact has been
suppressed by the employees concerned but the authorities
have taken different stand and imposed a lesser punishment
viz. reduction in salary and the punishment of censure
were awarded to the concerned persons. While Ln this case*
the Respondent Management has taken a different view
and imposed a capital punishment of removal from service
which is clearly disproportionate to the charges framed
against the petitioner. Further, he argued even though the
Respondent Advocate argued that those persons
mentioned in Ex.Wl to Ex.WS were not appointed on
compassionate grounds and they were given appointments
far some other reason, they can produce documents to

2250

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 10, 2008/VAJSAKHA 20, 1930

[Part Jl—S ecl 3(ii)]

mentioned that the authorities must cheek die medical
card issued by the Corporation with regard to members of
the fondly. Under such circumstances, though the petitioner
tuts not mentioned his brother's name in the family
particulars, it is not a suppression of foci more particularly
a wiltful suppression of the foct, therefore, the petitioner is
entitled to get the relief as prayed for.

11. Though I find this argument is vehement, I find
by not giving the name of the petitioner’s brother, the
petitioner has suppressed a foct which is against the scheme
of compassionate grounds, as such f find the action of the
Respondent Management in terminating the sendees of
the petitioner is just, fair and legal.

12. The next point to be decided in this case to what
relief the petitioner is entitled to?

In view of my foregoing findings that the action
taken against the petitioner by Respondent Authority is
just, foirand legal, I find the petitioner is not entitled to any
relief in this LD.

13. Thus the reference is disposed of accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,
corrected an pronounced by me in the open court on this
day the 10th January, 2008),

K. JAYARAMAN, presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:-

For the I Party/Petitioner : WWl Sri A, Amalraj

For the II Party/Management : None

Documents Merited:

On the petitioner's side

Ex. No.

Dale

Description

EtWl

1406-2003

Order of punishment given to
Joseph Xavier

Ex.W2

14-UV2003

Order of punishment given to
J. Murugavel

ExW3

2203*2005

Order of punishment given to
Sethu Sridhnr

Ex.W4

22-03-2005

Order of punishment given to
Sivnkumnr

&W5

2203-2005

Order ofpunishment given to
RSelvuraJ

On the 2nd Party/Management's side

Exlfo

Dale

Description

BkMl

Scheme for providing
employment to Wards/
Dependents of deceased
employee

ExM2

10*10-1984

Circular

ExM3

298-19*9

Circular

EXM5

19-1-1990

Circular

ExM5

Norms for selection of
deceased of deceased
employee/de pendent

EkM6

15-03-1996

Circular

ExM7

01*07-1996

Joining report of the
individual

ExM8

17-12-1998

Memo

ExM9

0401-1999

Explanation given by the
individual

EtMlO

05-03-1999

Order of enquiry

ExMll

27-10-2000

Letter calling objection from
the individual alongwith the
enquiry report

ExM12

—

Enquiry report

17 2008

WH. 1065.—jtlljiPH) ft*IH 1947 U947

^1 14) ^Thiira 17 ^ ^ 4S-fl4 IN? ^

^ fpfatsf aflr 3i<r sr4*»n\I ^

Tf 1 frffe f^TTC rf aftulf'ld)

SlPMWCTR (Ttyj R&0 13/2006)

^ 16-4-200S "8S uryi

eri

[Tt hr- 12012/118/2005-ati$ m (dl-II) ]

New Delhi, the 17th April, 2008
S.O. 1065 ,—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref, 13/2006 of
the Cent, GovL Indus. Tribuna l-cum Labour Court
ERNAKULAM as shown in the Atmexure, in tbe industrial
dispute between the management oflndian Bank and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 15-04-
2008.

[No. L-12012/118/2O05-IR(B-U)]
RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

annfxure

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT ERNAKULAM
Present: Shri P. L, Norbert, B.A., LL.B., Presiding
Officer (Friday the 14th day of December 2007 /23 rd
Agrahayana 1929)

I.D.I30F 2006

Workman Sony Thomas,

Vathiath House, C/o.Tbankachan,
Padivattom, Edapally P.O., Kochi.
By Advocate SrLC.S. Ajith Ptakash.

Management The Deputy General Manager,

Indian bank. Circle Office, 3575,38/
1672-B & C. Chfttoor Road,
Pullepady Jmction, Kochi -682 035.

[WTH—W3(ii)]

wunm :Hf 10 , 2flGS/itfi,i« 20, 1030

2251

By Adv. Sri S.Easwartn

This case coming up far hearing on 14-12-2007, this
Tribunal-eum-Labour Court on the same day passed the
following.

AWARD

This is a reference made under Section 10(1X4) of
I.D.Act questioning rite action of management in
retrenching die workman.

Though parties entered appearance and filed their
pleadings, when die matter came up for evidence die worker
submitted that ho is not pressing the dispute. An
endorsement to that effect was made fat the claim uaHHmmt.
In the circumstances it has to be presumed that (here is po
existing dispute for adjudication.

AWEXURE

BEFORETHECfNIRALGOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAIXXW-LABCHJRCOUBT
BANGALORE

Dated foe nfolhwfflmber, 2007
Present: Shri A. R. StDDlQUl, Presiding Officer
CR.No. 13/2002

I Party

H Party

Mi MB Kuflrarni, The Regional Manager,

C/o V T Saboir, Corporation Bank, Regional

No. 28, Chandraitmuli, Office, Near Basaveswara Circle,
Nehr\HiagfVf Gokul Rood, Near Bits Stand,
HUBU-58OG30. HUBU-580029,

appearances

In the result, an award is passed finding that the
action of the management in retrenching the workman,
ShrLSony Thomas is legal and justified and the workman is
not entitled for any relief

I Party Shri N S Narasitnha Swamy

Advocate

II Party Shri N Venlcatesh, P S Sswkai

Advocate

Typed, corrected and passed by me on this the l4tft
day of December, 2007.

H L. NORBEBT, Presiding Officer

Appendix: Nit.

17 wto, 2008

"WiSR, 1066,— M$\+ faRK 'SlIWPW, 1947 (1947
14) ^ qm 17 ^ 3, kMhi TO* qflWftm

fa? ^ ^ qnfcrcf •% 4K

W& aiterlfw ftqiq 3 tor aNilfaqr

aflftTOtWOT -UWMU, $lcflt tfr (*i4«l tiiMF 13/2002)
TMlfalfl qi«fl ^ qt) 17-4-2008 TIM

tami

[Tt T5!l-12012/271/1999-3^ «E (#-II)]
4v*ir, tdfirerit

New Delhi, the 17th April, 2008

5.0. 1066.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 13/2002 of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Corporation Bank and
thdr workmen, received by the Central Government on
17-4-2008.

[No. U12012/271/1999-IR{B-ll)]

RAJ1NDER KUMAR. Desk Officer

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising die powers
conferred by Clause (d) ofSub-sectloii (1) and Sub-section
2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
has referred this dispute vide Order No. L- 12012/1271/
1999-1R(B-Hj dated 22-02-2002 for adjudication on the
following schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of
Corporation Bank in dismissing ttasetviceof ShriMidomd
B Kulknmi vide ordsr dated 25-1-1996 is justified? If not,
what relief tin wdtiunaft concerned is entitled to?"

2, A charge sheet dated 14-05-1994came to be issued
against the first party workman in fallowing terms:—

H You have been working as Clerk at Dharwud Branch
of the Bank since 20-8-199L It is repotted against you as
follows:—

1.01. Thai on 22.1 2. 1993, you wet* working as Cashier
at the Branch. That on that day,- at about
U.30 A.M. M/s. Mahindarakar Brothers,
Constituents of the Branch remitted Cash of Rs,
3,24,500 and Rs. 64,750 in various denominations.
That Sri P. Raghuprthi, Cash Officer was given
Rs. 1,50,000 out of the said cash in Rs. 100
denomination for the purpose of counting. That
the remaining cash was stitched by Sri Nagaraj
KuHcarai, Peon and handed over to you for the
purpose of verification. That foe cash packets
were also counted by Sri Nagaraj Kutkami and
found correct. That yon verified the cash, entered
the slip in the Tellers Rough Cash Book and

1526 GlitKi—20

2352

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY I0 n 2008/VAtSAKHA 20, 1930

handed over the cadi to Sri Raghupathi for the
purpose of counting. That while doing so, you
clandestinely removed a cadi packet of Rs. 5
denomination from the said cash. That Sri
Raghupathi received the cash from you without
counting the cash packets. Subsequently, on
verification by Sri Raghupathi, it was found that
there was a shortage of one cash packet of Rs. 5
denomination amounting to Rs> 500. That Sri
Raghupathi made good the shortage of Rs. 500
on that day. That on 27-12-J993, when Sri
Raghupathi made enquiries with you in that regard,
you admitted having removed cash of Rs. 500 pm
23-12-1993 and promised to repay the same to
him. That on 29-12-1993* you repaid the amount
of Rs. 500 to Sri Raghupathi through Sri V V
Kulkami and Sri R K Shyamsundar, employees
working at the Branch.

1.02. That M/s. Mahindrakar Brothers, constituents of
the branch have been remitting cash regularly at
the Branch ranging from Rs. 2.00 lacs to Rs, 4.00
lacs daily for the last several years. That during
the months of September to December, 1993,you
were reporting shortage in their remittance and
they were reimbursing the shortage. That on a
few occasions, before remitting cash* they had
counted and checked (he cash twice and despite
that you had reported shortage in their remittance.
That in that regard, the constituents lodged
complaint dated 32-12*1993 at the Branch. That
on 27-12-1993, the representative of the said firm
Sri C E. Bidrj while tendering the cash in respect
of cash paying in slip for Rs. 7331, knowingly
tendered excess cash of Rs + 300 Le< 3 notes of
Rs. 100 denomination and 2 notes of Rs. 50
denomination. That Sri Bidri also noted down the
numbers of the notes of Rs, 50 denomination and
Rs. 100 denomination tendered to you. That
although there was excess of cash of Rs. 300 in
the cash tendered to you, you accepted the entire
cash and bsued the counter foil to Sri Bidri without
however declaring that there was excess in the
cash tendered by him. That thereupon* Sri Bidri
complained to Sri Vijaya Kumar Prabhu, 5ub-
Managei and you admitted before Sri Prabhu lhai*
there was excess in Rs. 50 denomination notes
■ only. That there after the Branch manager
instructed for checking of the cash in the cash
cabin and in the meantime, you were asked to be
seated in the Manager's cabin. Thai while
checking was in progress, you went to the
stationery room and hid the excess cash received
by you in the stationery bundles. That Eater on
2 notes of Rs, 100 denomination and another 2
notes of Rs. 50 denomination hidden by you in

[Part TI—Sbc. 3(ii)j

the stationery bundles were recovered. That thus,
you did not accouru for the excess cash tendered
by the customer with a dishonest intention to
derive undue pecuniary gain.

2. The first party submitted his explanation dated
JE-07-1994 denying the allegations of the misconduct as
levelled in ihe charge sheet. The Disciplinary Authority
not being satisfied with his explanation ordered Domeslic
Enquiry into the matter and on Lhe conclusion of the
enquiry, the Enquiry Report dated 23-08-1995 was submitted
by the Enquiry Officer giving a finding on the aforesaid
first charge in favour of the first party and where as recorded
a finding on the second charge holding the first party guilty
of the said charge. The Disciplinary Authority vide
proceeding dated 28-9-1995 proposed the punishment of
dismissal giving opportunity of hearing to the first party
and there upon confirmed the punishment vide order dated
25-01 -1996. The appeal preferred by the first party cume to
be dismissed by order dated 11-05-1996. There upon it
appears, the first party raised the dispute with the
conciliation officer concerned resulting into the present
reference proceedings,

3. The case of th e first party workman as made out i n
his claim statement, in brief, is to the effect that the charge
sheet dated 14-05-1994 was concocted and issued at iho
dictates of the vigilance department of the management
net based on the facts. The documents including the
complaint in support of the charge sheet have been cooked
under the guidelines of the vigilance cel); that the alleged
complaint dated 22-12-1993 from Mahindrakar Brothers and
lhe two complaints by Shri C. [. Bidri (Badli), one undated
and other dated 23-02-1994 marked during the course of
enquiry Ex M-10 h Ex M-7 and Ex M-9 respectively do not
bear inward diary seal of the bank and even cooked up to
issue the charge; that the alleged excess cash as mentioned
in the charge sheet of Rs. 300 was never produced during
the course of the enquiry nor Machine Numbers of those
notes said to have been traced in the stationery bundle
were tallied with the machine numbers allegedly hoted by
the said complainant Bidri, who h said to have remitted the
cash with the bank through the first party; that the counter
foil of pay-in-si ip mentioned in the charge sheet was not
among the documents produced during enquiry, The
alleged excess cash was never accounted as per banking
rules and no document was produced to substantiate the
remittance on 27-T 2-1993; that the written complaint for the
incident in question by said Bidri was filed only on
23-2-1994 and the other complaint by the said Bidri is
undated and it is there after the charge sheet is filed only
on 14-5-1994 and there was an inordinate delay not
explained at every stage and circumstances fatal to the
entire Disciplinary Proceedings that the Enquiry Report
holding the first party guilty of charge No. 2 is based on no
evidence and findings are perverse in as much as the
Enquiry Officer did not appreciate the fact of non-tendering

[Will—^T3(ii)]

WifWTIWni 10, 2003/^nra 20, 1930

mi

of the excess cash of Rs. 300 during the course of the
enquiry; that the reaJ customers Mr. Mahindrakar Brothers
who made a general complaint on 22-12-1993 at Ex M-10
was never examined so also the scribe of other two
complaints at Ex M-7 and Ex M-9; that the Enquiry Officer
did not appreciate the fret that the said Bidrt was not at all
the customer of the bank and that he visited the branch fbr
the first time and never knew the first party; that Enquiry
Officer foiled to appreciate the Act that there was no
evidence prefaced to show that any excess cash was
produced on 27-12-1993 and there was no accounting of
alleged excess cash. He failed to appreciate the fe£:sei*«
defects in cooked up documents and also Medtoeppred&u
the various relevant points raised in the wrmtt brief
submitted by the first party on the conclusion of the
enquiry; that the order of the Disciplinary Authority
oo the findings suffering from perroxity was passed k s
routine manner without application of the mind and without
a speaking order. Therefore, the findings of the Enquiry
Officer as well as the dismissal order passed against him
were illegal and liable to the set aside. In the result, the first
party requested this tribunal to peas an award setting aside
the dismissal order and reinstate him into service with lull
back wages and other consequential benefits.

4.Tbe nunagemgit by its counter statement among
other grounds, contended that the reference is liable to be
rejected solely on the ground of delay and latches on die
part oftbe first parly in raising the dispute in the year2002
i. e., after a gap of about six years from the.date of the
dismissal. While, narrating the allegations made in charge
sheet, the management contended that after affording
sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the first party to
defend his case taking the assistance of Shri Stephen
Jsyachander, Assistant Secretary, Ganara Bank Employees
Union and bis Defence Representative cross-examine all
the management witnesses at length and even opportunity
was given to the first party to adduce his defence evidence
and he produced six documents which were marked at Ex,
D-l to Ex D-6. The management then contended that alter
conclusion of the enquiry a report was submitted holding
the first party guilty of the second charge and then a copy
of the report was sent to the first party after issuing die
second show cause notice proposing the punishment and
giving he ari ng in regard to the punishment and findings of
the Enquiry Officer and it is thereupon the alleged
p unishment order dismis sing the first party from service
was passed.. His appeal against the dismissal order was
also rejected. The management then contended that with
regard to die validity of the Domestic Enquiry an issue
may be framed and finding may be given in the first instance.
Die management then gave reply to each of die paras of
tbe claim statement denying the averments made by the
first party in challenging the proceedings, to challenging
the dismissal order so also the contentions taken by the
first party with respect to tbe oral and documentary

evidence produced during the course of the enquiry. In
die last, the management requested this tribunal to reject
the reference.

5. Based on the aforesaid contentions of the parties
my learned predecessor in the first instance took up the
question with regard to the validity and feinwss of the
enquiry proceedings conducted against tbe first party.
During the course of the trial of the said Issue, the
management examined Enquiry Officer aa MW I and got
marked 19 documents at Ex M-ltd Ex M-19. By order dated
24-10-2002 my learned predecessor recorded a finding to
tbe effect that the Domestic Enquiry conducted agiust the
first parly is feir and porper, Thereupon the first party
examined himself on the point of victimization and after
hearing learned counsel for tbe parties aa award dated
28-2-2003 was passed rejecting the reference.

6. Aggrieved by die order dated 24.]£.2002 and the
awards dated 284)2*2003, the first party approached the
Hun’ble High Court in W P No, 31948/2003and his Jotxtfup
of Hon’bk High Court by order dated 24-07-2007, not
interfering with die order dated 24-10-2002 passed by this
tribunal, quashed the aforesaid award and remanded back
the matter to this tribunal with a direction to reappreciate
the evidence on record and to pass appropriate orders as
to the guilt or Otherwise of the first party and also regarding
tbe proportionality of the punishment by permitting the
first party to examine himself on the plea of victimization
and to .dispose off the matter within 3 months from the date
of receipt of the records.

7. After die remand both the parties were notified
and they appeared through counsdsi First party examined
himself on die point of victimization and got marked two
documents at Ex W-1 and Ex W-2. On the part of the
management MW 2 was examined by way of rebuttal. There¬
upon, I have heard learned counsels of the respective
parties on merits and the case is posted oh this day for
award.

S. Learned counsel fbr the management
Sh. N. Venkatesh, vehemently argued that as findings Of
this tribunal on Domestic Enquiry has gone in favour of
the management, now, the only question to be considered
would be whether the second charge LeveJJed against the
first party has been proved or not as per the findings oftbe
Enquiry Officer. While supporting the findings of tbe
Enquiry Officer on the charge, learned counsel submitted
that the management in order to substantiate the charges
levelled against the first parly examined in all 7 witnesses
and got marked as many as 13 documents Ex M-l to
Ex M-13. He contended that there was sufficient and legal
evidence of an independent witness by name Bidri who
made two complaints against the first party speaking to
the fact that he paid an excess cash offts. 300 apart from a
sum of Rs. TJ2 f cm 27- f 2- i 993 so as to test the integrity of
the first party as he was in the habit of reporting shortage

2254

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2W*/VA1SAKHA 20, 1930

[Part II—Sec. 3(ii)]

of the amount being paid with the bank by the aforesaid
find Mohindrakar Brothers on several occasions. He
contended (hat though the first party received the excess
amount ofRs. 300 he failed to return the same to the said
complainant examined as MW 1 and he had hidden the
said amount in the stationery bundle kept in the stationery
room and that came to be recovered by the Branch Manager
and thereupon further procedure was followed by the
Branch Manager in reporting the incident to the higher
authorities and it is on the conclusion of the investigation*
charge sheet was issued against the first party He
contended that the Bank Manager, the Sub-Manager as
well as (he other officials of the hank have spoken to the
aforesaid facts alleged in (he charge sheet corroborated by
the documentary evidence and therefore second charge of
misconduct against the first party has been very much
proved,

9, He nextly contended (hat the charge of misconduct
is very grave in nature and the management was justified
in dismissing him from service, he then quoted several
decisions of various High Courts and Supreme Court
contending that when the Domestic Enquiry finding has
gone in favour of the management and charges of
misconduct have been proved during the course of the
enquiry the provisions of Section II (a) of the ID Act need
not be invoked by this court and the punishment order
passed by the Disciplinary Authority also cannot be
interfered with it being a case of misappropriation involving
moral turpitude, J would like to come to those decisions
hereinafter if found relevant and necessary. Learned
counsel for the management also argued on the alleged
victimization saying that when the charge of misconduct
itself is proved there cannot be any question of
victimization. He also contended that there is no evidence
produced satisfactory to be relied upon in supporting the
contention of the first party on this point.

10h Whereas learned counsel for the first party h
Sh. N £ N challenged the findings of the Enquiry Officer on
the second charge on various grounds already urged in
(he claim statement and will be taken into consideration by
this tribunal one alter the other*

l L Before adverting upon the merits of (he case and
appreciating the respective arguments advanced for the
parties, 1 would like to bring on record in brief the oral and
documentary evidence produced by the parties during the
course of the enquiry.

12. As could be read from the Enquiry Proceedings
and (he Enquiry Report, the management examined seven
witnesses as MW 1 to MW 7. MW 1 said to be the
complainant who tendered excess cash oFRs. 300 with the
first party along with a sum of Rs. 7321 to be remitted with
the bank as a representative of the said Mahindrakar
Brothers. MW 2 is one Mr, Venkatesh V Kulkami said to
have been working as Clerk and said to have been made

his statement before the Branch Manager with regard lo
the first charge levelled against the first party* MW 3 is the
then Branch Manager to speak to the fact that he received
a letterat Ex M-2 from the vigilance cell and in response to
the said letter he recorded statement of witnesses MW 4,
MW 5 and MW 9 and sent them to the vigilance cell as per
his letter at EXhM 3 + MW 4 is one Mr, Naguraj Kulkami. once
again working as a clerk to speak to the fact that on
27-12-1993, he went to bring stationery ft™ the stationery
room, die Manager A run Kumar and Lakshman Kamkar
were present there and Lakshman Kamkar took the
stationery from the room to the Manager's cabin and when
the bundle was opened currency notes were found but he
did not note the details of the case. MW-5 is one
Mr. K Arun Kumar, who has deposed to the fact that Eiis
statement at Ex M -5 was recorded by the Branch Manager
and the contents of his statement are correct. He has also
spoken to the fact that in the cabin of the Manager in the
presence of other offic ia Js, the first party made his admiss ion
of the misconduct committed by him, MW,6 ts the then
Sub Manager Mr. Prabhu who spoke to the fact that on
27-12-1993, the complainant told him of paying of excess
cash of Rs, 300 consisting of two notes of Rs. 100 notes of
denomination and two notes ofRs. W denomination with
the first party but first party returned only counter foil and
not the excess cash and then he enquired about the mailer,
counted the cash on his table and found it to be correct,
then a piece of paper was produced by the complainant
showing the numbers of the notes and they were compared
with cash amount and the numbers rounded of in the piece
of paper al Ex M-8 were found missing, ft is his further
statement that then the stationery bundle was brought to
the cabin of ihe manager and was found containing
currency notes, in the meanwhile, Mr. Arun Kumar came
out of the stationery room to report that first party was
seen m pushing some currency notes into the stationery
bundle. MW 7 was (he last witness for (he management
and his statement was to the effect that 27-12-1993 while
he was in the stationery room* Arun Kumar came there for
some loan application forms followed by the fiist party and
it is Arun Kumar who told him lhat firsl party kept
something inside the stationery bundle and that he himself
has not seen him keeping inside the said bundle. He then
staled that he and Nagaraj Kulkami look the bundle to the
Manager's cabin which contained a sum of Rs. 300. The
documents which were marked during the course of the
enquiry at Ex M-l lo ii\ M-13, are the letter dated
27-12-1993/13-01-1994 addressed to the Regional Manager
by the Branch Manager MW 3, a letter dated 22-2-1994-
wrillcn by the Senior Manager to the Branch Manager
namely MW3 ? the statement dated 25-2-1994 said to have
been given by the said Prabhu to the Branch Manager, the
statement dated 23-02-1994 said to have been made by
Arun Kumar to the Branch Manager, Pay in slip dalcd
27-12-1993 d the complaiul dated 23-2-1994 saidlo have been
made by said B Edali, the letter dated 22-12-1993 to the Branch

f^Il—W^3Cii>]

Lft, 3008^11^20, 1930

2255

Manager by Mahindrafcar Brothers, the letter dated
27-12-1993 written by the first parly to the Manager
requesting him to change him to other department The
letter dated 29*12*1993 by one Sh, R. Raghupalhi to the
Branch Manager giving details of the incident involving
the first party for first charge and statement dated ml given
by one Mr. V. V. Kulkami concerning to the first party
respectively. The documents produced by the first party
at Ex D-l to Ex. D-ti once again are the copies of the
statements of Nagaraj Kulkami, said Pratahu, said A run
Kumar at Ex D l,D-2 and EM, Ex D 3 is the representation
by the officials of the bank to the Deputy General Manager
nuking a complaint ofthe suffering and the hardship being
caused to the officials of the bank working as Cashiers.
Ex D i and D*6 are the xerox copies of the scroll sheet
dated 27-12-1993 and 2S-12*1993. This is all the oral and
documentary evidence which was considered by the
Enquiry Officer while exonerating the first party on first
charge and holding him guilty to the second charge

13. On going through the aforesaid records* 1 find
substance in the arguments advanced for the first party,
that there is no sufficient and legal evidence to sustain the
aforesaid second charge against the first party and
therefore findings on the said charge suffered from
perversity. In order to bring home the guilt of the first party
on the second charge, three important factors were to be
established, firstly, the alleged excess cash payment of
Rs. 300 to the first parly by Mr Bidali, the second factor
whether the first party him self kept those Rs. 300 currency
notes in stationery bundle and third factor will be the
recovery of the same from the stationery bundle. The
Enquiry Officer on the first point entirely relies upon the
statement of Bidalj coupled with his two aforesaid
complaints one undated and the other dated 23-2*1994.
The statement of Mr. Bidali in his examination in chief is to
the effect that he tendered a sum of Rs. 7321 plus excess
cash of Rs, 300 to the first party saying he wanted to
deposit a sum ofRs. 7321 only, but the first party did not
return him the excess amount of Rs. 300/- when he
demanded, instead the first party kept two fifty rupees
notes on the table as an excess cash and kept two notes of
hundred rupees denomination in his table drawer and for
that he approached the Sub-Manager MW 6 who in turn
counted money and found it to be Rs. 7321 and when-
piece of paper containing the numbers of currency at
Ex M-JS was produced by Mr. Bidali he found that two
notes of Rs, 100 and two notes of Rs. 50 denomination
were found missing. If we go by the above statement of
Bidali so also the statement of MW 6 which was again
relied upon by the Enquiry Officer, it is hard fobdieve as
to what difficulty MW 6 faced rather what prevented him
not immediately seizing those two notes of Rs* 50
denomination kept on the table and two notes of Rs. 100
denomination which were kept in the table drawer of the
cabin of the first party- The stery goes to say that MW 6

reported the matter to MW 3 P the management and the
Manager asked the first party to remain in his cabin itself
till the enquiry was completed. The story appears to be
quite unnatural and against the calendar of the events. A
question arises as to what once again prevented the Branch
Manager MW 3 not to rush to the cabin of the first party
and then to seize or recover the aforesaid amount kept on
hii table or in his table drawer. Then the next question will
be what prevented Mr. Bidali in not mating complaint on
the very same date about the $aid incident. The one
complaint which is not dated cannot be taken to be a
complaint to have been filed immediately after tee incident.
As undisputedly MW 3 made no report of the Incident to
the higher authority, namely, the Regional Manager till
13-0M994 on which data he sent his report at Ex M-l, -
narrating the facts leading to the incident and thereafter.
Therefore, we have to ignore the aforesaid undated
complaint and when we come to the other complaint1*,
Ex M-9* it is dated 2-.2-1994 made after a gap of about two
months from the date of the incident The very feet that
there was no complaint by the Bidali immediately after the,
incident, the fact that the branch management never
reported the incident to the higher authority uptill
13-01-1994 must give rise to the suspicion that no such
incident in fact had taken place as on27-12-1993. If realty
such an incident happened on that day then even in the
absence of any complaint from Mr. Bidali the bank Manager
must have taken cognizance of the incident and must have
scut a report accordingly to the higher ups. Therefore, in
the absence of any such complaint and the report, it is
improbable to believe that there was incident as alleged
against the first party. It was rightly argued for the first
party that payment of excess cash to first party itself is nor
established by any documentary evidence. The only
documents produced is Ex M-6 re., pay in slip but there is
no counter foil produced being issued to Mr. Bidali by the
first party. In feet; statement of Mr< Bidali before fee Enquiry
Officer is self-conflicting on the point. Once he stated that
when he demanded the excess cash amount the first party
without returning the same gave him the counter foil and
again Is statement was to the effect that it was given to
Mahiudrakur Brothers* it is not in dispute that as on
27-12-1993 there has been no'payment or remittance of
Rs. 7321 accounted with the bank. Documents at Ex D-5
and D-6 produced will reveal that the aforesaid amount
was in fact was accounted with the bank on 28*12*1993, in
fact this statement of MW 3 also has stated that amount
was taken into account as late payment on 28-12-1993.
Therefore, the very fact that the first party received any
amount much Less the excess cash from Mr. Bidali and
passed the counter foil in his favour against Ex M 6 fails to
be established by the evidence produced by the
management. As noted above* the very fact that there was
no complaint by Mr. Bidali immediately after the incident,
that, there was no recovery of the amount kept on the table
and also in the table drawer in the cabin of the first party

2256

THE GAZETTE OF INDJA : MAY 10, 20WVAISAKHA 20, 1930

[Part II—Sec, 3(ii)j

and the fact that there was no report by MW 3 about the
incident to (he higher ups must lend support to the
contention of the first party that the payment of either of
Rs t 7321 or the payment of excess cash remains to be
substantiated in the evidence of Mr, Bidali as well as in the
evidence ofMW-3 and MW-6. The story of the management
that first party was indulging in reporting of the shortage
of payment of the amount being remitted by Mahindrakar
Brothers and for that they sent a letter at Ex M-l 0 dated
22-12-1993 and in order to test the integrity of Mr. Bidali
paid excess cash of Rs. 300 under Ex M-6 again stands on
very shaky ground. It is said that an heavy amount of
Rs, 2 to 4 lakhs was being remitted by the bank and on each
occasion first party was reporting shortage to be reimbursed
by Mr. Bidali, It Is not believable as to how such omission &
on the part of the first party would have been allowed for
quite a long time and even If the Mahttidrakar Brothers
wanted to test the integrity rather to trap the first party,
they must have come out again wtlh some heavy payment
to ascertain as to whether any shortage again with some
heavy payment to ascertain as to whether any shortage
again still be pointed out by the first party, but, here is the
case where Mr. Bidali said to be representative of
Maliindrakar Brothers comes with a meagre amount of
Rs. 7321 with excess cash of Rs. 300 to be paid in the
account of the bank and it is said that the first party did not
account fbr the excess cash on the face of it itself the story
appears to be improbable and unbelievable, particularly,
when it has come in the evidence of Mr, Bidali that he had
never come to the bank except on 27-12-1993 when he
wanted to remit the above said amount. In his own words
he did not know the first party earlier to that, One more
story is added to say that Bidali was accompanied by his
three to four friends to identify ihe first party working as
Cashier known to them they were not examined before the
Enquiry Officer, it will not be out of the context to note
here that the two friends said to have written the aforesaid
two complaints are also not examined in the enquiry.
Strangely enough nobody from Mahindrakar Brothers was
bIeq examined in support the contents of letter at Ex hMQ,
Another interesting point lo be noted is that nether the
said letter at Ex M-10 nor the complaint at Hx M-7 and
Ex M-9 borne either the seal and signature of any official or
any endorsement on hchalf of the bank in receiving those
documents. There was no inward diary as such produced
to prove that those documents were received by the bank.
It Is here we find substance in the contention of first party
that these are all the documents brought in picture just to
support the charges of misconduct levelled against the
first party. Therefore, the fact ihe Bidaii paid excess cash
ofRs. 300 along with other sum vide Ex M-6 into the hands
of the first party and he failed to return the excess amount
has not been proved by sufficient and legal evidence except
the statement of Mr. Bidali not believable under the
aforesaid facts and circumstanc brought on record. The
statement of MW 6 again on the point has lo be discarded
as a make believe story. Now the next factor to be

substantiated was with regard to the alleged fact that the
first party kept the said amount of Rs, 300/- in (he stationery
bundle. To prove this fact the management entirely
depended upon the statement of Mr. Anin Kumar* MW 5.
First of a|l when we go through the statement of MW 5 in
his examination in chief, he gave no details of his alleged
statement made before the Branch manager, MW 3 with
regard to the incident in question. Now as per his statement
at Ex M-5 made before the Branch Manager, he goes to the
stationery room to procure a loan form where Mr. Laxman
Kamkar, MW 7 was already there. He noticed first party
entering the stationery room and then stuffing something
in the stationery bundle and immediately he told Mr. Kamkar
about that, then, he informed this matter to Prabhti (MW 6)
then he goes out of the branch and talks to the branch
manager on telephone asking him to come outside and
then told him that he noticed first party stuffing something
in the stationery bundle. First of all it is to be noted that
Mr. Kamakar who is also examined as MW 7 specifically
says that he did not observe the workman keeping anything
in the bundle, Secondly, when the workman was to be
seated in the Managers cabin during the course of the
enqu iry, it is high ly i mprobab le, to believe that he ventured
to enter into the stationery room and in the presence of
MW 5 and M W 7 and kept the amount in the stationery
bundle. Then, if you go through the report at Ex M-l, the
story given by MW 5 gets falsified. As noted above, even
as per the statement of Bidali, the two notes of Rs. 50
denomination were kepi on the table and two notes of
Rs. 100 denomination were kept in table drawer, then a
question arises so as how and when the money came into
the hands of first party once again to be kept in the
stationery bundle, panicularly, when there is no evidence
brought on record lo show that first party had come to his
cabin from the cabin of the manager ai any poim of time
before be went to stationery room. As per the very
evidence produced, it is also cl ear that the first party visited
the stationery room only sit about 10,15 A M, and the
banking hours were from 10.30 A.M. onwards. Therefore,
question of first party keeping any amount in the stationery
room at about 10.15 A.M. When the banking transactions
itself did not commence and he did not receive any amount
from any customer much less Mr. Bidali before that never
arose. Nuw coming to the recovery it Is the story again
devoid of any legal sancihy Undisputedly, ihe money in
question has not been recovered from the person of the
first party. Assuming for a moment it was found In the
stationery* then by no stretch of imagination it can be said
that it is the first party who had kept that amount in that
stationery bundle. The possibility of somebody else even
Mr. Bidali at the connivance of others and at the Instance
cTMahindnikar Brothers to teach some lesson to the first
party having some grudge against him for the reported
shortage the money keeping the money in the stationery
bundle and this being recovered tan never be h relied out. If
ihe money was to be recovered from the first party or
atkast from his table or table drawer then things would

[^nn—^F53(ii>]

2CK>S/^ina 20 ? 1930

2257

have been different. Now assuming fora moment the story
as pvt forth by the management has gotsome truth. The
next question will be whether the evidence produced in
support of the said story could be said to be legal evidence.
The whole episode appears to be a stage managed having
no legal sanctity followed by any established principle or
the procedure known to the law. If really the integrity of die
. first patty was suspected and the complaint/letter to that
effect was made by Mahtndrakar Brothers at Ex M-IGthen,
the proper and legal course to be adapted should have
been by way of filing complaint, atleasc after the incident
or by way of investigation done by vigilance cell of the
management Here is the case where the enquiry has been
done by the branch" manager and it is he who recorded
certain statements of die officials of die bank said to be
under the instructions of the vigilance cell. The vigilance
cell itself could have planted a customer in disguise to test
the integrity of the first party making remittance of certain
amount to see whether he reports shortage. Here is the
case where Mr. Bitfali who is said to be the representative
of Mahindrakar Brothers plays the role of vigilance and
acting upon his statement MW i and MW 6 went on
making their own investigation and enquiry without
following any established principle or procedure known to
the law. In fact, as rioted above, the recovery itself Is highly
doubtful apart from the feet that the amount recovered was
neither paid back to Bidali nor was produced before the
Enquiry Officer. There is no Mahajar of any sort conducted
for the alleged recovery. Therefore, whatever evidence is
now brought on record to speak to the above said episode
is not only insufficient but also has no legal sanctity. It is
interesting to note that even after the report at Ex M*1, the
vigilance cell does not come into action but adopts a
strange procedure in asking MW 3 to record the statements
of witnesses and the complainant into the alleged incident.
This conduct on the part of the vigilance must tell upon
the feet how serious the vigilance cell of the management
was about the incident in question if really the incident
had taken place, Hew* therefore, the findings ofthe Enquiry
Officer based upon the statements of MW 3, MW 5 and
MW 6 with regard to the excess payment and its recovery
are not based upon sufficient and legal evidence. While
recording the finding, the Enquiry Officer also has taken
into consideration the statements of certain bank officials
including MW 5 and MW 6 before MW 3 starting that
when die money was traced in the cabin of the manager,
the first party broke down and made his admission to that
effect. This observation and the reasoning given by the
Enquiry Officer are factually incorrect The very first report
made by the branch manager at Ex M-1 at para 4 makes it
abundantly clear that first party was requested by the
manager and other to inform about the facts ofthe case Le.,
the feet that he pinched notes, and the first party bluntly
refused the allegations stating that he is innocent. Had the
first party admitted the guilt or the feet that he had kept
amount in the stationery bundle, then MW 3-would have
been the first person to make mention of this feet in his

aforesaid report of the incident. Therefore findings of the
Enquiry Officer which are to great extent based on the so
called the admission ofthe first party again must be said to
be suffering from perversity keeping in view the aforesaid
report at.Ex M-1. Therefore, it is, in my opinion a clear cut
case of no sufficient and legal evidence to substantiate the
second charge of misconduct levelled against the first party.

' 14. It is the case of the first party that he has been
victimized for his Union activities and to support his
contention, he produced a letter at Ex W-l written by him
to the Management and to the Union Head Office espousing
the cause of certain workers. There is nb denial of this feel
on the part ofthe management Even otherwise as seen
above when the charge of misconduct has not been
substantiated and the manner in which the story has been
built up to implicate the first party for the Incident tn question
must be a circumstance sufficient alone to say that he has
been victimized in the matter. Therefore for the reasons
foregoing, this tribunal has no hesitation in its mind to
come to the conclusion that the management, miserably,
felled to prove the misconduct levelled under the second
charge and that findings ofthe Enquiry Officer cm the said
charge suffering from perversity are liable to be.quashed.
Sines findings are held to be not illegal and improper,
dismissal order based on that must collapse under its own
weight being held to be illegal and vide ab initio. The
contention of the management that reference must fail on
account of long delay of six years is not to be, entertained
in the light of now well settled principle of law that reference
cannot be rejected on the score of the delay itself but relief
as such could be moulded as laid in a decision rendered on
2E*09*2007 by their lordship of Supreme Court in the case
of Karan Singh vs. Executive Engineer* Haryana State
Marketing Board (Civil Appeal No. 4561/07) {arising out of
SLPtQNo. 26379/05]. Therefore, theafcovesaid contention
of the management must also fell.

15. Now coming to the reliefto be granted to the first
party when the dismissal order is held to be bad, the only
consequence would be his reinstatement into service.
Coming to the question of backwages it is to be noted that
first party was dismissed from service In the year 1996
whereas he appears to have raised the dispute somewhere
in the year 2002 os could be evident from the reference date
of dispute to this tribunal. He has not explained as to what
actually prevented,in not raising the dispute well within
the time much less within reasonable time. Therefore, he
cannot be given benefit of backwage for the period between
the date of dismissal and the date of reference before this
tribunal which is made on 22-02-2002. Now, the question
arises as to what extent he should be granted backwages
from thf said date of reference till the date of his
reinstatement. In his examination in chief before this
tribunal* be has come to say that he has not been gainfully
employed from the date of his dismissal despite making
sincere and several efforts to get some employment. There
has been no denial of this fact on behalf ofthe management
during the course of his cross-examination, that apart

2158

THE GAZETTE OF TNDTA : MAY 10, 200E/VAI5AKHA 20, 1930

[Part II—$rc.3(ii)]

MW 2 in his affidavit evidence has not only not disputed
the above said statement of the first potty but also made
no positive statement saying that first party has been
gainfully employed. That apart above said statement of
first party cannot be taken as a gospel truth. It just cannot
be believed that he has been idling himself without any
employment or earning his livelihood during the period he
was out of the service of the management Therefore, having
regard tp this factor and the facts and circumstances of the
case it appears to me that ends of justice will be met if the
first party is granted 50 % of the backwages from the date

of reference Le, \v,cX 22-02-2002 till the date of his
reinstatement with continuity of service and other
consequential benefits, Hence : . the following award:

ORDER

The management is directed to reinstate ihe first
party into its service with 50% of the back wages from
22-02-2002 till the date ofhis reinstatement with continuity
of service and other attendant benefits. No orders to cost.

A. R. SIDD1QUI, Presiding Officer

M feft, 6 200S

W*3TL1067.—^-$9*+ wwtp ^ 1971 (197 L W 40) flft VR1 J

ERMMkr O) wifiicT srfa^rcl

^ w^lai-rT ^ ^ ^ i, ^ r^r (2)

amt 3rfw>rftm *Ft TTTRT5=ff ^ ^if^q ~5Ki *tt stMrir to a^raift ^ W ^iRwqlw #T

SPffMflftilT qrn^i 3 t 7 W1 ^Tl ^ TTflf t :

tmvfl

L

■^*n«i <jfk yst«i

$Ff 4i^|U| #TB% ^

Z

■3TTTOfq [riHNl

^,■3^ 1

3^3*3 E^t it

3.

4H ^»e*nvi Tstrn I

3R1 W 1 * * 4 5 * 7 ! ^ "Run 1

4.

WRT T^Rn I

5.

’HGW* 3R WIPF #13%

fai# (del+ii) i

[^. TJ-11013/D 1 /2007-'5^I ]
FVe f

New Delhi, the 6th May, 2008

5*0* 1067.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised
Occupants) Act, 197 L (40 of 1971), the Central Government hereby appoints the officers mentioned in Column (1) of the
Table below, being Gazetted Officers of the Government to be the Estate Officers for the purposes of the said Act, who shall
exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed, on the Estate Officer, by or under the said Act within the
limit* of his jurisdiction in respect of the public premises specified in Column (2) of the said Tabic:

TABLE

Designation of the Officers

1. Welfare and Cess Commissioner,
Bhubaneswar, Orissa,

2 Consultant-in-Surgery,

Central Hospital, Joda, Orissa.

2 Deputy Welfare Commissioner,

Barbi I, Orissa,

4. Assistant Welfare
Commissioner, Bhubaneswar, Orissa,

5. Assistant Engineer, Labour

Welfare Organ isation Bhubaneswar,

District Khurda, (Orissa),

Categories of public premiers and local
limits of jurisdiction

All building residential Staff Quarters and properties
under the administrative control of the Labour Welfare
Organisation, Bhubaneswar Region located at
Bhubaneswar and all other localities outside places in
Orissa State functioning under the said Region.

[No. A- 11013/01/2007-WJl
DINESH SINGH Under Secy.

Printed by (he Manager, Govt. of India Press, Rin^ Road, Jtiay&puri, Ne^- Ddlii-l!flOG 4
and Published by the Controller of Public ions : Delhi -1 10054.